@fdr

Speed information is based on post from "Мамаладзэ" on forumavia ru (Link).
I don't know what is his affiliation, but judging by his forum posts he is flying for Red Wings and/or flying type that crashed.

He's saying that a/c landed approx 800m after TDZ (1700m after RWY edge?) travelling 262 km/h, crashed at >200 km/h.

FDR readout was completed already on 30th as per info from MAK Website, "Мамаладзэ" post with speeds dated late evening 1st. Not an investigator but believe it is enough time to get these basic readings out of FDR?

I stand corrected.

fdr

The first estimation I saw was of 50-60 knots. So I viewed the video probably 100 times, checked on the length of the a/c, studied the diagrams of the overrun, with LOC and downslope, pit, and then the elevated roadway. I estimated 100 knots, with numbers for fps. Mph, and standard conversions. I did accident reconstruction at Court for a time, so I think I am close, but still emphasize it is a 'soft' number. I was tempted to write 110-115 knots but wanted to leave room for the admittedly squishy metrics.

After reading forumavia, I will stand by the 100 knot value. I think it was higher, but precision is impossible. The reason I spent time on the work at all was to help establish a frame for what is obviously a very sad event. It is my opinion that "wait for the report" is just fine. If however, there are issues that are emergent, and affect the safety of the flying public, a quick ball park and early handle on the salient issues can do no lasting harm, if the data is helpful in quickly mitigating a problem that has persistence and a record of prior occurrence in its character....

@ FDR, that's why I don't even bother commenting. I'll wait for the release of the report before drawing my conclusions. The rest is speculations. :ok:

CD with T204-100 FCOM, SOP and QRH is here

PsychoKif from aviaforum who have CCTV recording wrote:

veracity of information.

The stated source of most of the "hard" figures is unattributed and looks questionable given that the posts on recovery of the recorders post dates the pages where the figures that are being espoused here start to come up in the forum, and then they are related to the THY B737-800 accident report, not the TU-204 off. Additional "distance" figures come up in between these pages, related to an assumption of worst case landing... with no evidence to justify the assumption.

Lyman may well be correct about the speed off the end, however there is a dearth of information to presuppose that the crew have acted in any manner other than attempting to deal with a critical occurrence. The images taken on the approach (sequentially by the same photographer) do not indicate an aircraft that is outside of normal flightpath parameters.

Wait for the actual data before hanging the crew.

I completely agree. The velocity off the runway and into the obstructions was not compatible with survival. The runway's length cannot be published as it is; better to publish a shorter value, and mitigate a worst case with EMAS.

To expect an overrun to be of lowest velocity rather than highest creates a problem, and serves no one. Exaggeration of any kind must err on the side of survival, not appearance. In a strange way, the runway was too long, for its performance the a/c needed much less than what was represented as being available.

I am sorry if my estimates have caused rumors of unwarranted accusations.

Not just in Russia - I've seen cameras in cars in Singapore and the States - people have them so they can prove who'se fault it was in an accident

I'm in the UK and use my mobile phone to record when driving any distance with a windscreen mounted bracket. One touch on the screen saves the last 2 minutes of video, or if an impact is detected by the shake monitor, the phone will autosave the last 2 minutes of video. I do this after 2 insurance claims that were not driver fault took far too long to finalize due to unreliable witnesses or false claims from those responsible.

There are now a few UK insurance companies offering cheaper insurance to drivers who agree to have a "driving monitor" in the car, normally for 17 to 25 year olds. The box is installed and the GPS data is sent to the insurer who will set your premium based upon how safely you have been driving and how much/when you drove.

Sorry for the thread deviation......

Were the pilots and the F/E in their designated seats?

Where is this CCTV footage (link) ?

Which taxiway exit is B4? The one towards the end of the TDZ or the rapid exit one well beyond the last marker?

Lyman, and for anyone reading this who is interested, if you are traveling at
100 kts, your kph is 185 (well, 185.2 ...)
At 100 kph, speed in knots is 54 (well, 53.99 ...)


EDIT:
Thanks, mm43, for you catching my error.

B4 is the third 90 exit and B5 is the 01 HSE

It's not circulated, by the posts of this guy it's security CCTV of VKO and he doesn't want it to be in open access.

The amendment to the FCOM mentioned earlier re turning off reverse if it does not kick in and leaving it alone point to the possibility IMO that instead of reverse they ended up with uncommanded forward thrust instead. The amendment is "temporary" pending a technical fix the way I read it

Thanks BOAC - there seem to be conflicting reports as to where the plane touched down (posts 250 and 253) - if it was at B4 then that is within the TDZ but even the late touchdown would still have given 1300m of runway and 200m of overrun before the fence.

- if you read a post by Kulver on one of the other overruns it is said that crew 'broke' the reverse levers and that gave 86%N1 forward thrust!

Something to be said for the Boeing way for thrust and T/R levers. But, even that didn't work for AAL at KJAC.

NB We still do not have clear idea of how the 204 reverse selection is made/controlled.