"Rumor is aileron feedback problem - system treated any aileron motion as external force, and attempted to "correct". Rudder was the only fully functional control."

Above was taken from Airliners Net, I"m not a Pilot so i don"t know how Credible that would be, i"ll leave that up to you Guys.

That makes a lot of sense. When he was downwind, there were several wild yawing movements. It could well have been attempts to lift the port wing.

Hello , I found some pictures here :

Посадка Ту-154 RA85563 в Чкаловске

foto by "Neustaf"

http://neustaf.fotoplenka.users.phot.../168446695.jpg

I cannot spot any emergency vehicles, neither in the videos, nor in the pics. I don't want to say that the whole thing is a fake, I think it as real, just wondering...

Why would anyone expect to see emergency vehicles in the pictures and videos we've seen so far?

It's a 10,000 ft (3,000 meter) runway and without flaps the plane was likely doing about 150 kts on touchdown. Where would you expect the fire trucks to be, and what are the odds they'd be visible in any given picture?

And parked (large) aircraft hide a lot of the ground in most of the images.

I think it's a fake. Just by the way it is filmed. Camera points to the ground just as it goes below the trees and come up again after landing. Looking closely the footage doesn't look quite right to me and as others point out, where are the emergency vehicles?

Plus footage of this miracle landing would have made the news and yet it isn't mentioned.

That last photo has got me believing this being an actual event instead of some staged scenario. In which case my hats off to these guys.

I'm wondering if there is a way of diconnecting the hydraulic power to the flight controls in the 154. If I had something like this going on in a 727 I'd give extremley serious consideration to diconnecting the flight controls on the overhead panel and flying in manual reversion, significantly more control there than here if the artificial feel computer is going nuts.

While it's true that it has that sense of a "viral video" (not seeing the moment of touchdown) when the camera points at the ground, given the vantage point I wouldn't have expected to see anything. The photos taken from a better point of view clearly show the touchdown though.

Fake? Guys, please get a grip.

this happened on a military airstrip with an airplane used and owned by the military/government. There is plenty of photographic evidence as much as the 3 movies, they all correspond.

Nobody knows what happened yet, it is questionable whether the Russian air force will ever publish a report about it, they are certainly not required to bring this into the open. However, Tupolev Design Bureau as well as MAK will want to know, as this type, at least the "M" Variant of it, is still used widely in passenger service.

It remains to be seen whether what did happen occurred after lift off or even before, such as a maintenance issue. The aircraft had been stored for 10 years, run up last week and was supposed to do a first test flight when the incident occurred. Obviously, it will need another one once they set right what went wrong here.

Rumours from Russia speak of a massive hydraulic problem. This makes sense to an extent, however there does not appear to have been a full loss of flight controls. At least part of them worked, as it is visible from the pictures. The landing gear remained extended, possibly planned but not necessarily so. The aircraft took off with flaps in normal take off position, but apparently landed without flaps extended. On the picture posted (no 11 in the sequence), one spoiler is seen extended as well as a slat. Especcially the lone extended slat is far from normal. So a massive hydraulic/flight control malfunction is certainly very likely.


In more than one way, it is testament to how massive the Tupolev is built that it survived this. It is testament to the skill of the flight crew that they managed to get this aircraft on the ground and how they did. I do hope that the fact that this videos and pics have gone around the world will prompt the Russian Air Force to tell what really happened. I think they owe it to the crew to do so, so we may fully appreciate the extent of the emergency and how it was dealt with.

Nasdrovie!
 

Taking the attached vid's with a few shots of frozen Stolichnaya! (rather than bait!) lol :eek:

Anyone see slats deployed? MAC (weight & balance issue?). I do remember a GF Tristar many moons ago in the sandpit with a forklift left in rear cargo hold which shifted on t/o. It made it back.......

Who knows and not about to guess! :confused:

Will the Tu-154 fly empty - or does it require ballast?

You have to admit, the first set of videos posted had this thing looking like a "viral" video attempt, particularly the fact that the most 'dramatic' moment (the landing) is conveniently obscured in the video. The addition of photographs from the landing removes any doubts about this having occured in a genuine way (rather than staged).

As to my previous statement/question... anyone know whether or not he flight controls on the 154 can simply be disconnected from the hydraulic system and allow the plane to fly in manual reversion. Being up front I'd prefer manual over wildly swinging powered controls.

That landing photograph certainly doesn't look staged or fake. Some of the yawing moments caught on the video implied some big lateral forces on the tail fin as well. Why would any sane operator take such risks for a viral fake?

If this was a military "test flight" then are we likely to ever know the cause of incident?

If this is RA-85563 as quoted (doesn't look like it in the pictures at reply 41, but it isn't clear), I don't think that it has been in storage for ten years.

I saw it less than three years ago being worked on and (although it doesn't look like it), it was in a line of active aircraft. This is the same line up which can clearly seen in the video's - the video's seem to be taken from the forward steps of one of the 154's? Also, from memory I don't think the touch down point would be visible from here so don't think there is anything suspicious about this.

RA-85563-UUMU-25-07-2008 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

A well known "viral" video where no operator or military took any risk, just some CGI trickery.

Like I said though, with photos of the landing I'm sure it was genuine.

<<Why would anyone expect to see emergency vehicles in the pictures and videos we've seen so far?>>

One imagines that a maximum emergency status would be in force with safety vehicles positioned at strategic points along the runway.

Declared a mayday on the VC 10 with a similar roll but not pitch problem.
We did a 180 and started to descend into thicker air hoping it might help the problem.
In the end I took the autopilot out as we believed the aircraft would break up as the movement was causing ceiling panels to fall down.
I had been taught to always leave it in as it could fly the aircraft better than you Sunny Jim.
Motioned stopped.
Runaway yaw damper but what mystified us is that there was no feed back through the rudder pedals (as we had with the Trident).
The motion was very different to a trident damper runaway.
Trident easier to diagnose as we had damper deflection indicators.
Wasn't the same motion as dutch roll although fairly similar.
Video looks like a rudder deflection problem followed by the secondary effects of rudder -as in roll and thirdly pitch.
Shows how structurally strong SOME aircraft air......

That certainly looks very hairy and congratulations to the crew for their airmanship!:D:D

There used to be an Italian AF Captain (solo from the Frecce Tricolori I think), who performed a similar, madly gyrating circuit, finals and flare at really extreme pitch and yaw angles, which were only slightly moderated after landing on one mainwheel and then hopping to the other one, nearly scraping the tip-tanks in the process, but I doubt anyone would be daft enough to try that in a large airliner, even for a viral video!!

The only concern I have about these videos!

It certainly would!! However, it seems that despite apparently having quite a bit of time (when one considers the fly-through and long distance shots), the person taking the video didn't seem to make any attempt to get to a more suitable viewpoint to record what must have seemed like the inevitable fireball!! Given the likely "value" of that video on the World market, why didn't he get to the other side of the trees??

That point, along with why did he initially film what must have been a routine take-off, as it was hardly an ideal viewpoint for that kind of shot and surely this must be a regular occurrence to the point of boredom at such a location!

Maybe they heard something unusual in the T/O run that caught their attention and possibly, if they were military personnel under strict control about where they can and cant go, he could only do the best from where he was!

Easy. Series Yaw Damper. What mystifies me is how that was never explained during aircrew systems training. Especially when the crew includes a Flight Engineer.

A series of pictures of the landing, taking from the opposite side of the airport than the video. Click on the pic to advance.

Link

Looks like a huge one-wing-down bounce there, on top of the other challenges. Tough iron, tough job to save the day. :ok:

Thanks for the edit stuckgear, much appreciated :ok: