Home » Gosavianadzor » News
January 9, 2013


Tu-204 Accident of 12.29.2012, at the airport "Vnukovo"

12/29/2012, there has been accident with the Tu-204 overrun at the airport "Vnukovo", which killed five people.
Based on the facts of accident Rostransnadzor organized collection of incoming information and the development of operational measures aimed at eliminating the recurrence of such aviation events.
Using continuously monitored data of the safety and analysis on aviation incidents involving aircraft Tu-204, Tu-214, airlines and maintenance organizations, it was pointed out for immediate action to prevent malfunction of limit switches, landing gear failures, wing mechanisation and control of the front landing gear at the taxi.
JSC "Tupolev" together with the maintenance organizations must to carry out activities aimed at improving the reliability of these systems of aircraft Tu-204, Tu-214.
Rostransnadzor Commission began to work to verify compliance with the requirements of legislation of the airline company CJSC "Red Wings", in accordance with the FZ-294.


Back to news

Apparently there is more to this accident than it seems.

"it was pointed out for immediate action to prevent malfunction of limit switches, landing gear failures, wing mechanisation and control of the front landing gear at the taxi."

1) limit switches - ok, we know already that these switches did not work and prevented the brakes and reverse from working.

2) landing gear failures - a better translation would be "landing gear extension and retraction system failures". Did they have problems with landing gear? When? Why? What kind of problems?

3) wing mechanisation - probably means that spoilers did not extend.

4) control of the front landing gear at the taxi - did they try to turn off the runway? how is that possible at this kind of speed? were they completely desperate?

This is frightening news, considering that the information comes from the most official source, the state air transport safety body...

This seems like an "omnibus" scorched-earth directive not necessarily related to this incident

The news release probably means more to those that can read Russian.

My sense is that they are concerened about multiple failures possibly having contributed. Such combinations typically present gotchas when one or more are hidden (non anunnciated or detectable) until you need their function when something else goes wrong

Careful with the sequence of photos. In Machaca's superb ones the third and fourth shots, of the after fuselage, are not in sequence: the fourth shows the fuselage very shortly after the crash and the third, later in the day when, presumably, the tail section's been towed aft to make way for rescue workers to enter the main section.

Likewise, the photo Kulverstukas posted from AviaRepair shows the cockpit section upright, after rescue operations, and not as it came to rest initially which seems to have been 90 degrees to port. So the view when rescuers arrived at the cockpit section would have been very different and more confusing.

Yesterday there was breefing at RW and Mamaladse leaked some info at forumavia:

I don't understand the engines being commanded off ?

Were they trying to fly at that instant or stop? If they were trying to stop wouldn't they have been commanding reverse?

Or do I have the timing all wrong? or maybe even the words

Yes. They was switched off with emergency switch (STOP), I don't know how its right named in aviation.

It is hard to believe that they deliberately reported correct numbers for CVR but actual values were very different. And there is written that it is widely (!!!) spread practise at Red Wings... If it is true, it can bring hard measures from Rosaviacia to the company.

Last 8-10s (500m) the aircraft goes on RWY only on the nose gear, sidestick full front. After it, before overrunning the end of RWY, fuel shut-off valves were closed.

The company is owned by Alexander Lebedyev multibilioner and oligarch from times of Yelcin era...

Karel X, are you saying that, at the very end of the overshoot area, the aircraft was still only on its nose gear, with the main gear in the air? Does this match with the exit/collision speed of 170kph Kulverstuka's post mentions?

Loma - would not switching off as much as you can, when you're convinced it's going to hit the fan, be a natural reaction?

lomapaseo

We can only guess... It's possible that after hard landing at PED, caused by F/E used the spoilers, he was told "newer do it again without command" (this is not my, this is one of the versions from russian forum). After "Takeoff!" it's possible again that one was trying to fly (flaps 18) and other to stop (reverse) while third "do nothing without command".

IMO ... not if it's a braking action

All of that is in the data. It will be interesting to see if the mains were on the ground. From the nose damage, it looks like the NG collapsed. The video shows a pronounced nose drop, there seem to be no wheel ruts in the terrain, etc.

This accident has all the data to hand; at this point, in its absence, guessing is just that.

Wheelbarrowing Part 2
 

Aircraft Stopping Hanger Talk not on cvr/fdr
1. Reverted rubber hydroplaning.........
2. Dynamic Hydroplaning.......................
3. Viscous hydroplaning ...........
a. Taken from FAA.Gov.
.................." Is due to the viscous properties of water. A thin
film of fluid no more than one thousandth of an inch in depth
is all that is needed. The tire cannot penetrate the fluid and
the tire rolls on top of the film. This can occur at a much lower
speed than dynamic hydroplane, but requires a smooth or
smooth acting surface such as asphalt or a touchdown
area coated with the accumulated rubber of past landings…or oils
from other sources e.g. Asphalt, BE 18’s, etc. (My Input). Such a
a surface can have the same friction coefficient as wet ice."............

4. Matching Tires for dual Wheel Installation
5. Due to a dynamic hysteresis of toe in to toe out. There is an unpredictable issue of hydroplaning that cannot be planned on or designed for.
6. Tire alignment
a. Tire alignment, mechanical/angular difference of trucks, tow-in, tow out, Camber,
b. Tire alignment e.g. Crosswind, crab/yaw, roll axis, pitch, castor.
7. Tire pressure variation
a. Including energy from landing
b. Proper or actual tire inflation
c. Some newer aircraft have pressure indication e.g. 777
d. Tire Failuire
e. Tire missing
8. Wheel barrowing
The combination of excessive forward pressure on the control column during the ground run and high speed can cause the main wheels of some nosewheel aircraft to leave the ground, allowing the aircraft to run along on its nosewheel only. The forward pressure has only to lift tires from effective braking or WOW (weight on wheels) deactivation.
9. Performance Charts/Braking action
10. Antiskid releases per tire
11. FTFT
12. Unlimited retreads
13. Unbalanced including slip tolerance
14. Limitations Mel
a. Tire tread
b. Brake wear
15. Tire temps.
16. Debris
17. Engineered defects (back to alignment problems)
18. Runway Slope/Drainage design and natural settling/puddles/snow/KLGA etc.
19. There is more to list. Above is Tire related.
20. Remember the Braking Action Truck/Vehicle is Calibrated.

We all can learn.

From forumavia:

Longeron:
Mamaladse:

No, I described situation at the final section of the RWY, just before overshooting. When crossing end of RWY, the speed was 220kph. After overshoot, the plane reportedly sat on all three gears and automatically begun a breaking action.

Early in this forum, there are videos of last landing at Pardubice airport. OK, it is little hard (nose wheel "bang"), but it should not be the reason for conflicting or uncooperative atmosphere in the cockpit several hours later. Now it looks like cockpit crew discussion about this irrelevant mistake was the first link in the chain of following fate events.

We seem to be getting a bit confused here - probably with the translation difficulties, but can I summarise what we THINK we know?

TU204 crews appear to operate without full harness.

They touched down fast - "20kph over max permitted" or "30/50kph"?? Some serious issues with CRM?

They did not deploy spoilers manually - does that mean they failed on auto?

Apparently lots of hopping around on various legs (due to high touchdown speed?

They selected full reverse without pausing to allow reversers to unlock? This gave around 90% forward thrust? A second reverse selection gave 84% forward? I assume the throttle mechanism had been 'broken' like the previous case.

At around 25 secs someone tried to g/a and reduced flap setting. Other crew may have been trying to stop? Flt Engineer thought to have contributed absolutely nothing to all this.

A/c apparently 'wheelbarrowing' (weight on nosewheel) over the last section of the runway (ie no braking available?) with full 'nose-down command?

A/c exited the hard surface at 220kph and hit the road at 170kph? At runway end both fuel levers were selected off and the reversers appear to have 'deployed'???

I must admit all that leaves me in a state of total confusion and dread! Very little appears to make sense in terms of operating an a/c. Was this a training flight?

Is there any news when a preliminary report will be out? It is surely a blessing that there were no real passengers, just the unfortunate c/crew.

Sorry for my runglish :ugh:

Confirmed

At least 20 kph more, and with wrong AoA too. Common (mis)practice in the airline, as they said after friday's breefing.

There was no signal from WOW switches. For autospoilers there MUST be signal from BOTH main gears.

They call it "goat" in rusian slang. (Der Ziege und die sieben jungen Geißlein). Yes, high touchdown speed, ground effect, high lift-to-drag ratio of a/c.

They selected intermediat reverse without pausing at idle. It's more strange: it seems that because of wrong maintenance in RW if ones move RCL to reverse AND if there is no WOW signal, there will be no reverse flaps move but engine will remain on direct thrust. When there IS the WOW signal this malfunction is masked (reverse flaps is engaged automatically). By "second" they mean that there was attempts to move levers to off.

Yes. F/E had to open spoiler manually (by FCOM).

FDR registered erratical sidestick signals.

Emergency fuel levers. All brakes (spoilers etc) deployed automatically on WOW signal.

:ugh:

16th Jan

- didn't mean to criticise, just to try and explain the problems we are having. We are all very grateful to you and your colleagues for the information..

BOAC, it's ok. Concerning misalignment of some parts of information - it's still only leaks and rumours. :(

Exactly - and if you could read the forum that is being quoted here, "forumavia.ru", you would have seen that 50% of the posts contain expletives, personal attacks and outright trolling. It is not a good source of information. Maybe there is no better source, but this one is not good at all. I wonder why anyone that really has some information would post it in such place, and don't believe a word in those so-called "leaks".

The chain reaction of the Internet is to be taken with a grain of salt. "Information" is taken from one site, repackaged, and reported in another. With all respect, most of what is available on any given thread should be held at arm's length. Self affirming opinion is rampant.

For me, photography is nice. Text not so much. I believe, and have an opinion here, relative to velocity, which I estimated from a video that was fortuitous.

The range of velocity opinions here runs from 30 knots to over 100. Unless and until some actual published and offical data is forthcoming, who really knows?

Argumentation is silly, til more is known.

As I understand it from kulverstukas et al. -

- Reverse thrust commanded
- Engines spooled up but reverser mechanism did not deploy, due to (either or both) jammed cockpit lever, or lack of WoW (due to wheelbarrowing on nosewheel due to excess speed (holes in cheese)).
- resulting in high FORWARD thrust
- emergency fuel cutoffs pulled as last resort to kill forward thrust

One pilot (FO?) started raising the flaps with the apparent intention of a go-around - but so far as I can see from the info so far, forward TO thrust was never intentionally applied (but occurred anyway due to the reverser glitch(es)).

It is an interesting conundrum that the braking devices in aircraft (spoilers, wheel brakes, reversers) only work or deploy if one is already slow enough to put weight on the wheels. If you are really too fast - they may not engage at all.

pattern_is_full, just little correction:

It is an interesting conundrum that the braking devices in aircraft (spoilers, wheel brakes, reversers) only work or deploy automatically if one is already slow enough to put weight on the wheels. If you are really too fast - they may not engage automatically at all.

I have read that there are two modification of Tu-204. Old, where thrust reversal is not blocked and new, where thrust reversal can be used only when spoilers are already deployed. This was the new type.

In both ac you need to stop the lever at mechanical latch and wait for two green lights and after it continue moving the lever. They didn't follow this instruction.

Only speculation:
1. lack of deploying spoilers manually (After Pardubice discussion?), in consequence thrust reversal cannot be used
2. bad manipulation with levers sat forward thrust

Reportedly high speed landing was commonly used at RW, with initial breaking using thrust reversal.

Wasn't the Russian Federation government supposed to issue a preliminary report on the 16th?

aterpster:

ICAO rules (Chicago convention), annex 13:

Seems reasonably steep when compared to frames on post #403. I would hazard a guess say ~26o may be even 30o.

Jazz Hands:

We do have a bit of that around this board. :)

There was reportedly found serious problems with training of pilots of Red Wings and their safety policy.

For example, after MAK checked 45 FDR data, related to one of pilots, in 21 cases a landing speed was too high, i.e. the landing from under GS, low AoA that could lead to the late touch down and a higher danger of overrunning RWY.

Source in russian:
«

Thanks Karel_x. Here's the APN article google translated:

01/18/2013 Sergey Kuzmin

"Wings" Lebedev did not reach
Why planes do not just fall

December 29 at the airport "Vnukovo" aircraft "Tu-204", belonging to airline Red Wings, skidded off the runway, broke through the fence and broke into three pieces, fell to Kiev highway. Fortunately the plane back from the Czech Republic without passengers. However, the casualties could not be avoided - the deaths of four of the eight members of the crew. To convince people who know the aircraft, aircraft do not fall for a reason. Especially passenger, especially such reliable as "Tu-204". As a rule, with very few exceptions (about one per million), planes fall on a very specific reason.

Now available for editorial appeared the first results of the investigation of an accident at the airport "Vnukovo" December 29, 2012. These materials are provided me with some officials close to the leadership of "Vnukovo" and the airline on the condition of anonymity. But before considering them, I want to recall almost identical incident with the aircraft of the same airline at Novosibirsk airport a week earlier. Skidded off the strip, the plane fell into a ravine and so severely damaged. The repetition of the situation in "Vnukovo", "carcass" was only saved by the fact that after the ravine was not any major obstacles - just a few months before this incident power Tolmachevo demolished concrete wall, which was just behind the ravine. If it does not, then it is possible that a similar disaster happened and how on December 21.

It is these two seemingly similar incident gave occasion to say that the aircraft allegedly brakes failed. Immediately after the incident at "Vnukovo" in the press somehow magically appeared that, they say, due to the state of emergency in Novosibirsk Rosaviatsia has already sent a letter to the Bank "Tupolev" with a certain requirement to eliminate defects in the braking system of the first 204. That is, the airline is not to blame - it's workmanship. Here you have a version of brake failure. But the paradox is that, for these two professionals of identical incident clearly showed from the start that with the aircraft as it was in the time locks - and some serious errors made it crew. Why? Because it is necessary to understand that the aircraft landing brake is not like a car. This is a very complex process, which involved dozens of liner systems. And it is doubtful that they are denied all at once, and twice in one week, and on two different planes. And more to the modern passenger liners, and specifically on the "Tu-204", the braking system is duplicated (by the way, like all systems of the plane) and if after 5 seconds after the touch is not braking the aircraft, it begins to slow down on their own (I stress that describe very roughly, because once again - this is a very complex technical process). And if this does not happen automatically, then the conclusion is obvious - the pilots of powered flight, and made a mistake somewhere.

And now the first official information. Attention, removing first indications of control sensors with aircrafts at the airport "Tolmachevo" (Novosibirsk) December 20, and "Vnukovo" December 27 experts found:

- First signal "compression struts" left landing gear was missing in both cases (so far, take this information in a form below, I'll explain what that means)

- Secondly, engines 1 and 2 (in the case of "Vnukovo" at least one engine so worked) worked on a line drawn without relaying on the reverse thrust reversers

And third, the spoilers (flaps), and air brakes were retracted!

Just imagine, this means that in both cases the pilots or simply did not control the process of landing, or simply elementary did not know how their ship in this mode. More of the materials that fall at my disposal begins to show why the pilots were behaving that way in these incidents.

There is a clear axiom that leads to an accident a range of reasons. And look, as is the case with the "Red Wings".

Preliminary records of the investigation have shown that the pilots "Red Wings", most likely, simply were not adequately prepared. At least, they have not been trained on the simulator on a number of mandatory training for pilots, and I stress, it is on this plane - "Tu-204". Judge for yourself.

Mandatory training pilots on a simulator at operation with a ground proximity warning systems and prevention of collision with another vessel was not done. Here, the objective, in our country there is simply no simulator "Tu-204" with such opportunities. Training of crew carried in the cabin, but the airline did not have developed techniques such training.

Then, again in the book of pilots shall record that they have been training with the machine to prevent stalling the aircraft. But again in Russia there are no simulators, that is appears that this record - lime!

Finally the internal orders airlines allowed access to the pilots operating the vessel, was not confirmed, roughly speaking, their specific skills in the training center. And this is a direct contradiction of the requirements of federal law. Imagine if in the final materials investigation revealed that the company management dispatched into complex meteusloviya not trained crew, but still in violation of federal regulations? And judging by the documents that were available to me, it was all for it and goes.

But we go further. All of the above, it is still only part of the problem. As professionals, the ship begins its mission on earth.

Already, experts found that the internal control and audit of the airline just did not work. Roughly speaking, the airline did not study their mistakes - hence the two consecutive identical incident "Tolmachevo" and "Vnukovo". Further, it was found that the burden on the engineering staff airline was increased (either saved, or really good engineers is not enough) and the company management often uses the services of professionals, who simply do not bear any personal responsibility for the quality of the vessel. Moreover, in all the airlines, there was a Special flight instructor, who must decrypt all data on piloting aircraft airline pilots and provide a daily report on the safety management of airline pilot. Roughly constantly monitor pilots. But the airlines 'Red Wings' flight instructor simply did not.

And now, the next key point. Experts have found that the service safety of airline "Red Wings" "is not implemented in full." In particular, does not reveal the actual and potential safety hazards and take corrective actions necessary for keeping the safety performance. There is no actual analysis of errors in the technique of piloting crews. And then, frankly, all the hair stand on end:

- Of the 45 transcripts reviewed by the Board of one of the aircraft commander of the vessel, "Red Wings" in the 21 th case contains high speed landing, indicating way to care for piloting glisadu (that is, roughly speaking violations route touchdown) and landing on small angles pitch, resulting in a normalized flight landing area and the probability of rolling out beyond GDP

Can you imagine, it turns out that the airline "Red Wings" is actually long and hard was the death of four of its pilots.

I am sure that in the final materials to investigate the incident, "Red Wings" we learn a lot more glaring detail. And this stuff I want to finish a reminder almost a similar case in 2010, with the aircraft "Tu-204", owned airline "Aviastar-TU". Then there was a very similar incident. March 22 at the approach to the airfield "Domodedovo" plane missed the runway and landed in the woods. Miraculously, there were no casualties, as well as the aircraft was returning empty from Hurghada after the charter flight. But the plane was completely destroyed - also broke into three pieces.

Again wrote that the aircraft with flight refused onboard computer. But the commission of the International Aviation Committee found virtually the same set of violations, as in the case with the "Red Wings": pilots do not fully prepared, there are a number of violations in the airline, and together, all this has led to a severe accident. And in some detail just what event coincided with what happened in "Vnukovo" and "Tolmachevo". Then even a criminal case was instituted, and the airline does not even license taken away. And now I want to ask one question: how much we, potential passengers will tolerate all this - after all, what is happening today in some airlines - is the actual mass murder because of the negligence and greed of the owners of airlines. And to illustrate the end of another figure: the incident with the aircraft «RW» occur regularly (while only talking about this company.) This company operates a total of eight aircraft - all of them "Tu-204". And more recently - the main park began to come to the carrier in 2007. And if you take the official statistics, from 2008 to 2010 there was a total of 12 serious accidents involving airliners "Tu-2004", which really could have led to loss of life. Of these, seven of RW! That is, these statistics are just screaming that the "Red Wings" something was wrong, but no one responded until the case came to Mr. corpses. Is it possible that this time it can get away with owners and managers of airlines, because it turns out that they are responsible for the death of four people.

This article sounds as a heavy delirium. :eek:

This one is more interesting: Incident: Red Wings T204 at Moscow on Dec 29th 2012, thrust reverser did not correctly open on landing

I think the Captain was responsible for the deaths if it was a handling issue.

Do you have any proof that Mr Lebadev was either aware or sanctioned flights operating outside the aircraft operation manuals.

Owners employ people who should have the knowledge to operate within standard and accepted procedures.

This will be either a tech issue mis handled or a manual handing error in my view. One thing I do remember was there were forecast strong crosswinds at VKO that day, always an attention getter on a snow risk airport and SVO won't take you if you feel the need to go somewhere with a more into wind runway.

Guess we defer to that source. However, images of plane at rest (angle of cabin) on embankment and fire fighters below elevation of highway, gives an impression (erroneous maybe) of a steeper inclination.

Mamaladse said that at CVR was recorded F/E report "reverse not yet engaged". Cpt doesn't answered, but pulled RC levers for 20 sec.

Maybe tomorrow the Ministry of Transport will make a resolution if they ground Tu-204, temporarily or permanently stop the activity of RedWings. If they decide for some of this possibilities, the result will be probably the same. Ilyushin finance, the leaser of airplanes, already things about another customers for 7 pcs of Tu-204.

Source:
Rambler

Driver of the Volvo car, which was hit by wheel at Kievskoe hwy, will sue RW. Two days after incident he was taked to hospital with fracture of the cervical vertebrae and a concussion. His car is totaled. He said that RW newer get in touch with him. (Via LifeNews).

From MAK
 

Chairman of the Technical Commission of Inquiry into the accident with the aircraft Tu-204 RA-64047 Airline «Red Wings» informs about the results of the preliminary analysis of the information of objective control and other information received.
Approach was carried out on runway 19 (length - 3060 m) to Vnukovo Airport. Piloting was carried by PIC. Before entering the glide the aircraft was in the landing configuration: Flaps - 37°, slats - 23°, and landing gear extended. Setpoint decision height was set at 60m, landing weight of the aircraft was approximately 67.5 tons, alignment - ~ 26.5%, which is not to exceed the limits set by Flight Manual.
During preplant preparation PIC has identified the target speed of the glide path as 210 km / h, with the PIC said that the need to withstand 230 km / h Reduction took place on the final approach in the director mode with disabled automatic throttle with an average speed of about instrument 255 km / h and vertical speed -3 ... -5 m / s. Reduction was performed without significant deviations from the glide path. Inner beacon marker was passed at an altitude of 65 ... 70 m, end of the runway (runway) was passed at the height of 15 meters and air speed of 260 km / h
Landing of an aircraft was within 5 seconds after the thrust lever (throttle) to mode "idle" at the speed of 230 km / h, at a distance of about 900 m from the 1000 input threshold, ahead of the left landing gear (left bank 1 ... 1.5 °), while there was a signal compression left strut. During the landing of the aircraft on the right side wind gusts reached up to ~ 11.5 m / s. The maximum value of the vertical congestion at touchdown was 1.12g on the record of objective control (hereinafter - MSRP). Since the passage of the true height of 4 meters to touchdown was about 10 seconds.
3 seconds after touchdown nose landing gear was lowered and there was signal of nose landing gear strut compression. Signal of compression of right landing gear strut at this stage not yet formed.
Almost simultaneously with the lowering of the nose landing gear crew moved the controls throttle engines to the "maximum reverse" in one motion and applied the brake pedal on.
Opening of valves reversing system on both engines did not happen. Also did not happen automatically release air brakes and spoilers. Issue spoilers manually crew did not make.
After the transfer of throttle to the "maximum reverse" mode registered an increase with both motors (forward thrust) to the regime Nvd ~ 90%, which actually corresponds to the nominal operation.
The pressure in the wheel brakes left (compressed) landing gear was up to 50 kgf / cm ², the pressure in the wheel brakes right (not compressed) landing gear was missing.
Minimum airspeed to which aircraft slowed after 7-8 seconds field landing was 200-205 km / h at ~ 0 ° pitch and roll of 1 ° to the left, after which the rate began to increase.
2 seconds after the transfer of throttle to the "maximum reverse" flight engineer reported on the non-inclusion of a reverse.
Throttle is in the "maximum reverse" for about 8 seconds, then the reverse was off. During this time the airspeed increased to 240 km / h
The increase in speed of the instrument led to additional "unloading" of the main landing gear. With fluctuations of the roll (from 4.5 ° to 2.6 ° to the left to the right) compression occurred then left, then right landing gear. Simultaneous compression of both main landing gear did not happen. Almost simultaneously with the reversal recorded off compression of brake pedal by left pilot to 60 °. As before braking was ineffective - the pressure in the wheel brakes was applied only when the landing gear strut is compressed.
5 seconds after turning off the reverse, a flight engineer after the words "Turn of Reverse! Reverse!". Registered retransfer throttle to "maximize reverse." As the first attempt, including the reverse has happened, both engines again took to the regime of a direct link (Nvd ~ 84%). Aircraft braking happening, airspeed was 230 ... 240 km / h After 4 seconds the reverse was off. At the time of re-enable reverse the aircraft was a distance of about 950 ... 1000 m from the exit threshold.
Within 6 seconds, reverse is in the off position, at this time the crew attempted to automatic braking, as evidenced by The in talks crew and transient appearance of single commands: "Automatic braking inclusive" for primary and backup subsystems.
In the area of ​​the output threshold throttle were transferred to a small reverse mode.
Rolling out the aircraft as the runway was over 32 seconds after landing, almost on its axis, the air speed of about 215 km / h In the process of rolling out at the command of PIC flight engineer turned off the engine by means of the emergency brake.
Further movement of the aircraft took place almost on the runway extended. After turning off the engine, by braking when driving on snow cover for the runway and arrivals on irregularities occurred simultaneously compress the left and right main landing gear. Compression main landing gear led to the automatic release of air brakes and spoilers, as well as to roll direction valves engine thrust reverser. Clash of the plane with the slopes of ravines happened to ground speed of about 190 km / h

There, guys
I hope I put 1 hr of my time and effort into good use trying to refine the translation. :rolleyes:
If you don't think this version is helping I will kill it so that this long post will not occupy too much space here.:uhoh:



Chairman of the Technical Commission of Inquiry into the accident with the aircraft Tu-204 RA-64047 Airline «Red Wings» informs about the results of the preliminary analysis of the information of objective control and other information received.

Approach was carried out on the runway 19 (length - 3060 m) from Vnukovo Airport. PF was the Captain. Before entering the glideslope the aircraft was in the landing configuration: Flaps - 37 °, slats - 23 °, and landing gear down. Decision height was set at 60 m, landing weight of the aircraft was approximately 67.5 tons, CG - ~ 26.5%, which doesn’t exceed the limits set by the AC flight manual.

Going through Before landing checklist Captain has identified the Vref speed as to be 210 km/h, and added that the actual speed should be set at 230 km/h. Descent took place in the FD mode with disabled automatic throttle with an average instrument speed of about 255 km/h and vertical speed -3 ... -5 m / s. Descent was performed without significant deviations from the glide path. NDB outer marker was passed at an altitude of 65 ... 70 m; threshold of the runway was overflown at the height of 15 meters and with airspeed of 260 km/h.

Landing of the aircraft was within 5 seconds after the TL (throttle) was set to "idle" at the speed of 230 km/h, at a distance of about 900 – 1000 m after passing the threshold, left main landing gear touched down first (left bank 1 ... 1.5 °), -and WoW signal from the left main gear was registered. During the landing of the aircraft wind gusts (from right side) reached up to ~ 11.5 m/s.

The maximum value of 1.12g on the FDR was recorded. It was about 10 seconds since the passage of the true height(absolute altitude) of 4 meters to touchdown.

3 seconds after first contact (by MLG) with the runway the nose gear touched down and WoW from it was registered. At that point in time no WoW signal from the right main landing gear was recorded.

Almost simultaneously with the nose landing gear touch down crew moved the TL(reversers) to the "maximum reverse" in one motion and applied the brakes (using pedals).

Reverse flaps of the engines didn’t deploy. Also auto-spoilers didn’t come out. After the TL were set to the "maximum reverse" engines N1 indication was showing ~ 90%, which actually corresponds to the nominal operation.

The pressure in the wheel brakes of the left landing gear (with strut compressed) was up to 50 kgf / cm ², the pressure in the right (no WoW signal) landing gear wheel brakes was missing.

Minimum airspeed to which aircraft has slowed after 7-8 seconds after touchdown was 200-205 km/h at ~ 0 ° pitch and roll of 1 ° to the left, after which the speed began to increase.

2 seconds after the transfer of TL(reverse) to the "maximum reverse" it was followed by a report from the flight engineer that reverse was inoperative.

TL(reverse) is in the "maximum reverse" about 8 seconds, then the reverse was turned off. During this time the airspeed increased to 240 km/h

The increase in the speed led to additional "unloading" of the main landing gear. With fluctuations of the roll (from 4.5 ° to 2.6 ° to the left to the right) strut compression occurred only to the left main gear, then separately to the right landing gear. Simultaneous strut compression of the both main landing gear did not occur.

Almost simultaneously with the turning off of the reverse, the pressure on the brake pedals was registered from left pilot seat (down to 60 °). As before, braking was ineffective - the pressure in the wheel brakes is applied only when WoW from the corresponding landing gear exists.
5 seconds after turning off the reverse, and after the words from flight engineer "Deploy Reverse! Reverse!” TL(for reverse) was registered to be set at full reverse for the second time.

As it happened during the first attempt, reverse deployment didn’t happen again, both engines again took to the regime of a direct thrust (N1 ~ 84%). No braking was happening, airspeed was at 230 ... 240 km / h (IAS). After 4 seconds the reverse was off.

At the time of re-engaging reverse thrust levers the aircraft was at distance of about 950 ... 1000 m from the exit threshold of the runway.

Within 6 seconds, reverse was in off position, at this time the crew attempted to use automatic brakes, (according to CVR) – several short commands can be heard on the recording – “Automatic braking turned on” (for primary and backup systems).

In the area of the exit threshold, TL (for reverse) was set to idle-reverse mode.
Aircraft exited the runway after 32 seconds from landing, with AC being on the center line, the IAS was at about 215 km/h during the process of rolling out.

Captain commanded to turn off the engines (using stop valves). The flight engineer switched off the valves after the command from the captain.

Further movement of the aircraft took place almost along the center line of the runway extension. After turning off the engines, when moving through snow surface (after departed the runway) AC started to slow down and due to irregular terrain surface simultaneous WoW signal from both main landing gear was registered. That led to the activation of spoilers and reverse mechanisms of the engines.

AC collided with the side of the slope at ground speed of about 190 km / h

Good post :ok:

They weren't going to give up on that landing were they? No matter how apparently badly it was going!