I'm not pilot nor aviation expert. So just some translations and links from russian forums.

1) RWZ9368 from radioscanner.ru
2) Some photo from blogger usolt
3) and from aviator_ru

Rumors are that there was malfunction of reverse and brakes and that this problem arises also at both previous overrun incidents. Also some witnesses told about strong wind exactly at 16:35MSK.

First one is disproved by this:

05.11.2012 В 18.43(МСК) В АЭРОПОРТУ ЕКАТЕРИНБУРГ(КОЛЬЦОВО) ЭКИПАЖ
ВС ТУ-204 RA-64043 ЗАО''РЕД ВИНГС'' ВЫПОЛНЯЛ ЗАХОД НА ПОСАДКУ В
АВТОМАТИЧЕСКОМ РЕЖИМЕ ПО СИСТЕМЕ ILS ИВПП-26Л. ПОЛЕТ ПО
ГЛИССАДЕ ПРОХОДИЛ БЕЗ ОТКЛОНЕНИЙ. ПРИЗЕМЛЕНИЕ ВС ПРОИЗОШЛО С
ПЕРЕЛЕТОМ НА РАССТОЯНИИ 1134 МЕТРА ОТ ВХОДНОГО ПОРОГА ИВПП-26Л
ОСТАТОК ПОЛОСЫ СОСТАВЛЯЛ 1566 МЕТРОВ(РАСЧЕТНАЯ ПОСАДОЧНАЯ
ДИСТАНЦИЯ 1800 МЕТРОВ) МАКСИМАЛЬНЫЙ РЕВЕРС ВЫКЛЮЧЕН
ЭКИПАЖЕМ КАК В ОБЫЧНЫХ УСЛОВИЯХ ЭКСПЛУАТАЦИИ ТОРМОЖЕНИЕ
ОСУЩЕСТВЛЯЛОСЬ В АВТОМАТИЧЕСКОМ РЕЖИМЕ. КВС С ОПОЗДАНИЕМ
ОЦЕНИЛ СИТУАЦИЮ ХАРАКТЕРИЗУЮЩУЮСЯ УГРОЗОЙ ВЫКАТЫВАНИЯ ВС
ЗА ПРЕДЕЛЫ ИВПП-26Л НА СКОРОСТИ 38 КМ/Ч ПОВТОРНО ВКЛЮЧИЛ
МАКСИМАЛЬНЫЙ РЕВЕРС И ВЗЯЛ УПРАВЛЕНИЕ ТОРМОЗАМИ НА СЕБЯ.
ВСЛЕДСТВИЕ ЗАПОЗДАЛОГО ПРИНЯТИЯ КВС ТАКОГО РЕШЕНИЯ И ЕГО
РЕАЛИЗАЦИИ ВС ВЫКАТИЛОСЬ ЗА ПОРОГ ИВПП-26Л НА УДАЛЕНИЕ 32
М.ПОСТРАДАВШИХ НЕТ. МЕТЕОУСЛОВИЯ:ЛИВНЕВОЙ СНЕГ,ВЕТЕР 150
ГРАДУСОВ, 2 М/С, ВЫСОТА ОБЛАЧНОСТИ 60М, ВИДИМОСТЬ 4200М,КСЦ=0,3.

and second (about wind) - from radioscanner (wind 270 degrees, 17 m/s).

It is 19/01 at VNO and the aircraft was landing 19.
Has been completely reconstructed and open 2 years now whilst 06/24 is being rebuilt due completion very soon.
19 is 10039 ft long.

Kulver - can you do that in English?

I am usually quite critical of the "Soviet Way", having seen a little of how it is in airBaltic (ex FO colleagues filled me in on the bits I missed) Nonetheless, if the 3 ! ! ! TU204 Overruns, by the same company, are proven to have been caused by the same dodgy WOW switches. . .what to say.

Looks like a 757, but. . . . funny not too many Western companies rushed in to buy these "bargain" 757's.

In the end, Russian aviation doesn't change in a hurry . . . be it A320 departures with loads of Xmas cheer on the wings/p1ssed pilots / take offs from ploughed fields. . . it all remains dodgy, VERY dodgy.

To be honest, I think most of the modern Tu types use parts from the same sources as western models these days.

Maybe, but how you deal with "issues" with aforesaid parts may be slightly different . . . . . actually, come to think of it, maybe not if we think of . . . . Er Airbus for instance.

BOAC in short translation it said that at Eburg (Koltsovo SVX/USSS) they touched at the middle of rwy, 234 m short of 1800 needed, swithed off reverse as in the usual landing and used autobrakes. And only lately, at 38 kmh CPT swithed max reverse on and pressed brakes. They overrun 32 m.

Come on - no manufacturer's had a completely clean sheet. Boeing's legal department did everything in its power to deny there was a problem with the Parker Hannifin rudder PCU on the 737 until presented with incontrovertible proof. Douglas had Convair's rear cargo door. The autoflight display that "confused" an Air Inter into the ground in the Vosges was manufactured by Honeywell and was essentially the same as fitted to other types as well.

jungle drums...kudos for your info on the downslope of the runway...if it were a US airport and I had jepps for it I would check that the very very first thing

in addition to making stoping more difficult...It also proves a slight visual mis cue and delays the touchdown

DozyW

Yep, you are probably right, but we tend to "come clean" just a little quicker :D
as there is usually a mechanism in place that (eventually) forces it.

Although the Itavia DC9/Concorde etc don't support my argument.

While discussing the matter in aviation group on one of the russian social networks similar to FB, I have seen that the information is persistent that mechanism that says to TU-204 systems that the AC is on the ground blocks among other things such as reverse engagement and interceptors, gear brakes too while AC is airborne (emergency brakes are the only option)...And that mechanism could end up being frozen. Similar thing happened recently to the same type. (But in that case they had big long field in front of them - plenty of space to stop. In this case there was a 2 meter high concrete fence and a highway.. - this time luck run out).


Could you explain to me how B/AB types handle this in term of how one can use brakes before struts will be compressed due to landing?

I am puzzled. :(

First part of 19 goes uphill, which makes it a pain in the arse to grease the landing... However, if you hold it off too long, you´ll be in the downhill sloped area, and then the rwy literally flies by underneath you...
The TU204 is supposed to be a bitch to land when it´s light...
Ferry flight, wet and slightly tricky rwy, second attempt, and a bit off crosswind - the holes in the Swiss cheese are lining up...?

May we place the largest cheese hole #1? Brakes?

pharmair - NO second attempt. It was one and only, look at flightradar24.

Sunamer, you can be pretty stuffed too in an Airbus (Brazil & Warsaw . . I think ) or a Boeing. . . just don't remember where at this moment, but same WOW (weight on wheels) logic (?) applies more or less.

It took a near-disaster and a dreadful disaster to get there in the case of the DC-10 cargo door though.

Those mechanisms wasn't in force until relatively recently - and it took a lot of tombstones to get there.

In the first case - as soon as the military are involved, no matter what country, things become complicated very quickly, as we saw recently with the GOL/XL mid-air over Brazil. There was a lot of misreporting around Concorde, have a squiz at the recent thread where a lot of the media narrative was put through the wringer and found wanting - in summary there was a lot done to minimise the risk of tyre failures causing fire between 1979 and 2000, but the fatal accident involved a failure mode that no-one had foreseen (and had never happened before).

Regarding Russia, I don't know if things have regressed a little under Putin in terms of secrecy, but I was very impressed with the honesty over the "teenager in the flight deck" Aeroflot disaster - not only did they come clean but they shared all the details as soon as they had them.

Sunamer - Airbus altered the WoW logic after a hull loss.

Lyman - the Jackson Hole B757 had a bushing missing from the auto speedbrake mechanism, I think it's unrelated to the WoW switch mechanism, but it's certainly a similar issue from a systems safety standpoint.

AA B 757, Jackson Hole.

How muchy influence can runway uphill/downhill have on stopping distance?

All I can fathom is a minute vector change in G loading.

Probably more than the regulators would have you believe, a bit like de-icing fluid has a negligible effect on aerodynamic performance . . . . . you know, "if we don't properly research it who can tell" because if we do. . . . Sheesh, a lot of flights are going nowhere in Winter.

Never underestimate the totally hypocritical /mercenary attitude of regulators when Boeing/Airbus/Govt power & $/€ are concerned.

Are we looking at something as simple as WOW and no auto-spoilers yet again? By no means conclusive but none visible in the wreckage. Perhaps no autobrake and reversers and on quoted past performance a longish landing? Is it that simple?


PS Dozy - you going to join the techlog AB thread?