No it is not. Back in a previous era I used to do load control on TU5s, I can say with 100% certainty. No Soviet era aircraft had any active fuel trimming system, the first a/c I'm aware of to have had one was the 310-300.

Solid bit of kit..
 

If it's a solid bit if kit then why would it break up in the air ?
It didn't of course !

Well known that very often a catastrophe happens when several negative factors occur together. Here, very likely the TOW was at the limit (this will be known soon), also no visibility at night after passing the shoreline. The crew did not flow for a long time before this second leg (Moscow - Sochi is just some 2+ hrs) but did not sleep the whole night (it was 5+ a.m). The plane reportedly started a prescribed right U-turn (likely intensive with significant roll). If at that moment anything happens (e.g malfunction of one of the engines) it may pose a difficult task to the crew to be solved almost instantly.

I assume to avoid needing to refuel in Syria. Supplies there are probably all shipped from Russia, so it makes no sense for them to upload fuel in Syria when they could stop before leaving Russia to tanker their own fuel.

Several posters above confrmed that the video shows the flare of a lighthouse, NOT anything related to the aircraft.

Same source which peviously suggested FOD in engines now suggests fuel pump failure, so we may probably discount both as pure speculation.

Originally Posted by PilotsResearch
Why would they need to refuel at Mozdok, only 80 minutes or so out of Moscow?

It was only one page back!

— ...Speed 300... (illegibly.)

— (illegibly.)

— Gears up, Cpt*.

— (illegibly.)

— Oh, ****!

(warning sound. stall warning?)

— The flaps, bitch! WTF?!

— Altimeter!

— We... (are finished? illegibly.)

(Ground warning.)

— (illegibly.)

— Cpt, we're falling!

* literally "Gears taken, commander"

So they (FO) pulled the wrong lever and stalled it into the drink is the picture being painted?

This would explain the Russian assertion of pilot error

I wonder where the above script has come from? CVR is yet under the water or just pulled out of it and has not yet decoded by "Lubertsy".

First recorder rescued was a CVR.



0:39

- It's the sound one...
- It's CVR. Mars-BM

CVR

I can well understand popping the cover off, first thing to leak out would be water. But am amazed at the speed with which it seems to have been followed by the transcript.

Indeed--and it uses magnetic tape, not solid state storage.

Yes, the last Winter Olympics were in Sochi. But before you take this as a judge of weather: It was 21C in the park (near Adler airport) in mid-February during the Games.
People were wearing shorts & flip-flops, even at the skiing events in the mountains. That weather was not a freak heatwave: a friend of mine worked there for 7 weeks and it didn't get close to freezing in all that time.

BEA Trident at Staines 1972 ? Not identical but sounds like common aspects.

Kulverstukas,
Are you saying that when the Captain asked for 'gear up' the FO selected the flap up (all the way) instead? :{

The circled right-hand lever is marked шасси (undercarriage)
The circled left-hand lever is marked ЗАКРЫЛКИ (flaps)

The " Careless" has one of the highest power to weight ratios of any civilian aircraft.
They make a 320 feel like a slug hence the high fuel consumption/relative inefficiencies.

It was known for being one of the fastest flying a/c out there, as well as t/o / rotate, being a blast.
I always looked forward to flying one, because it felt like a mad howling dragster.

Just see how they flew Alrosa flight 514 back out of that short disused military a/f in the Taiga, then it was flying again in 2015
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2XUgKLIG_5M

The likelihood of it being overweight is about zero here, so the finger surely has to be pointed to some sort of nasty error >stall scenario.

Sadly the historical data for accidents moments after take off, especially over water and in the dark, are almost invariably pilot error - usually somatosogravic illusion or similar.
It all seems eerily similar to so many other "inexplicable" accidents in identical circumstances.

up down n out:

In your linked video there appears to be a "cover" over the center engine. What's that about?

thrust to weight ratio for MTOW (assuming max thrust at sea level):
A320 = 0.25 - 0.31
Tu154B2 = 0.27
Tu154M = 0.31
B737-400 = 0.31
B737-300 = 0.32
B737-700 = 0.27 - 0.34
B757-300 of 0.31
B767-300 has 0.27 - 0.35

Not sure about "one of the highest" claim... Seems like those numbers do not support that.
:}

The picture doesn't look like the panel of crushed plane. It is completely intact.
The photo is taken from this theoretical article:
http://denokan.livejournal.com/167530.html
The possibility of human errors is described in this article. The photo is taken inside parking plane, I suppose.

Should have said "was".
Engine technology of course has moved on for priorities on economy.

If you compare a modern later generation 737 with 2 x CFM / P & W 20,000-25,000 lbf,-

with this thirsty heavyweight museum piece from 1972 - using 3 x 20-23,000 lbf, you will find the A320 & 737 families empty are 10-15T lighter & use 1/3 less fuel.

Indeed... very similar (that was premature slats in after a call for a flap setting reduction)

It was also a crowded cockpit and a distracted pilot possibly in the throes of a heart attack.

TASS

Source says military Tu-154 plane crashed at 510 kilometers per hour
A source close to the investigation has told TASS the plane’s pitch angle was too high and it was being rocked from side to side


MOSCOW, December 27. /TASS/. The Russian Defense Ministry’s Tupolev-154 plane that crashed into the Black Sea on December 25 was trying to make a right turn seconds before the disaster. It was flying at a speed of 500 kilometers per hour with its nose high up, a source in the law enforcement has told TASS.

"The crash occurred while the pilots were retracting spoilers (when extracted the spoilers increase the plane’s airlift - TASS). For yet to be established reasons the plane’s pitch angle was too great. Apparently the plane deviated from its designated path while making a right turn. As a result it flew into the water at a speed of about 510 kilometers per hour," the source said.

...
Read more here:
TASS: World - Source says military Tu-154 plane crashed at 510 kilometers per hour

Moscow says it is inappropriate to speculate on Tu-154 crash theories until probe is over

It is absolutely inappropriate to raise any statements or political assessments at this stage, Zakharova stated

MOSCOW, December 24. /TASS/. It is inappropriate to speculate on what might have caused the crash of the Russian Tu-154 in the Black Sea until the investigation is over, Russian Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said on Tuesday.

"Before commenting, it’s better to wait for what experts say," she said. "Let us leave it [speculations on the crash theories, including a terrorist act - TASS] on the conscience of those who thinks they have the right to speak on that topic."

-50%
More:
TASS: Russian Politics & Diplomacy - Moscow says it is inappropriate to speculate on Tu-154 crash theories until probe is over

Kulverstukas,

how do you rate the source of this?

Yes, retracting the flaps will cause loss of lift but it should not be fatal. Also I have doubts in terms of the trajectory. The gear goes up very early, usually moments after unstick, if the flaps had been retracted at that point, I doubt they would have made the turn.

Yes but with one engine out it would easily be the highest !!

Pilots who are reading this thread will know that a twin-engine airliner requires a higher thrust-to-weight ratio than airliners with a larger number of engines, to cater for engine failure during take-off and the need to clear screen height. Hence the rather pedestrian climb rate of the early A340 compared with the largely similar A330.

There were some exceptions, such as the VC10, which the ARB required to be able to continue climb after losing 2 engines on the same side - however, if the 3-engined Tu154 has about the same thrust-to-weight ratio as an A320, then that is probably higher than regulations strictly require.

News of the Solchi disaster seems to be slipped off the front pages of Western rags, which seem to be more concerned with the deaths of Parfitt, Michael, Fisher and Adams than 92 innocent Russians...:ugh:

Were those 'official' CVR transcripts? If so, from what source?

CVR transcript can be authentic, but a time stamping is missing. Flaps problem may arise some 1-2 min later after gears up.

One does wonder about the stages of flap raising... and why any asymmetry might have crept in. If there's a suggestion of dutch roll or wing rocking this might imply flight regime near or above the stall incidence (for the configuration)

Premature slat retraction
 

IF this is what happened it is indeed very similar to the PI accident. All the more sad therefore that those old lessons weren't learned. Within a few weeks of that crash we all we went back to the sim for the irreverently titled 'Sam Key Memorial Exercise'. The 'droop' (leading edge flap, no slot) was raised about 40 knots too soon, all hell broke loose, and order was immediately restored by reselecting the droop down. All a bit of a non event... once one knew what to do. The general rule of 'if something horrid happens, undo the last action' works even if you don't understand exactly what's going on and ought to be more generally known.

@AN2 et al

Untill now, no "source" can be accounted as reliable or genuine. All "facts" discussed in this thread falls exactly into "rumours" part of it's name.

Thanks Kulverstukas.

That is what I thought.

At least by now they appear to have both recorders. I guess only when we get a proper release by the experts we can start to make some sense in this. The stuff written in the papers appears to be mostly w.a.g's. One sais 500 km/h, the other 300, e.t.c. this is unreliable to the max.

I can imagine a flaps error, but it does not come together with the flight path. Then again, the flight path is wrong for the SID, and so on. So we'll have to wait.

Being reported earlier today (Russian media - RBC) that there was a fault with the flaps, which should have been manageable in theory as a "known" issue, but not handled correctly by the crew leading to a stall.

BBC Reports 'Faulty Wing Flaps'
 

BBC quoting 'Pro Kremlin Website' stating 'Faulty Wing Flaps' to blame and showing the CVR transcript posted hear earlier.

Russia plane crash: Flight recorder 'reveals faulty wing flaps to blame' - BBC News

According to the BBC, the CVR revealed there was a problem operating the flaps, resulting in loss of control.

harryman
"Indeed... very similar (that was premature slats in after a call for a flap setting reduction)"wrong! the captain called for "gear up" the co pilot pulled the wrong lever.later the levers were modified to stop that happening again

I still wouldn't be surprised if "flaps" is a mistranslation and turned out to be slats.