• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Russian plane crash

I saw that on Yahoo earlier today. The video suggests an intentional crash, given that the plane was nearly vertical at the moment of impact. I doubt lack of fuel was the cause, given the size of the explosion (and that it took several hours to subdue the resulting blaze). It's just speculation at this point, but I'm very interested in seeing what comes of this.
 
Yes, I too find it difficult to understand how the aircraft would end up in such an attitude while attempting to land. Early reports suggest the plane had aborted a first or even second attempt and was coming around for a third; but I cannot see how you get from the traffic pattern to impacting the ground at near-vertical orientation.

The airliner doesn't seem to be arcing downward into the ground but rather flying in a more or less straight line, suggesting that it had to have some significant altitude when it started to pitch downward, in order to have gotten to such a steep angle before impact.
 
It doesn't take much to change a plane's orientation when aerodynamic stall (failure to generate enough lift for stable forward flight, generally because of forward speed being too low) is involved. It makes the plane unstable, meaning even a fairly small disturbance in any direction can lead to a positive feedback in which the forces pushing the plane out of alignment only keep pushing harder the farther out it already is. The results of a search for plane crash videos will be full of examples of planes unnaturally rapidly pitching, rolling, or rolling-then-yawing, right before starting to plummet or while plummeting.
 
I wouldn't presume it's intentional just yet. USAir 427 hit the ground at a similar angle.
 
As the CNN reporter stated, Russian Regional Airlines have an incredible poor record. In fact, all of the satellites of the former Soviet Union have had incredible problems with maintenance, training, and very unreliable equipment.

However, this was a B-737, not Russian equipment. There was an airworthiness directive issued some years ago to correct a problem with the B-737's rudder system. I wonder if that had been done. If not, that could easily have caused the near vertical dive into the ground that we see on the utube video... As has also been pointed out a stall could be possible, as well. We won't really know until an investigation is complete...

In the meantime, it would not be wise to fly on ANY Russian Airline or on one operated by a satellite of the former Soviet Union. That also includes Chinese and former Soviet client states that operate old Russian equipment. It's action that doesn't have high prospects for longevity based on incredibly poor safety records...
 
It's a 23 year old 737.

13/07/1990 Euralair Horizons F-GGML
01/06/1992 Air France F-GGML
15/07/1995 Uganda Airlines 5X-USM
17/02/2000 Rio Sul PT-SSI Stored 08/2005 at Mexico City
01/09/2005 Blue Air YR-BAB
17/05/2008 Bulgaria Air LZ-BOY
19/12/2008 Tatarstan Air VQ-BBN
Crashed 17/11/2013, On landing In Kazan, Killing 44 passengers and 6 crew ]

Aircraft Registration Database

PT-SSI Boeing 737-53A 24785
Remarks: 17.2.00, severe damage after partly collapse of maingear Belo Horizonte (SBCF), Brasil 17.12.01,

Info on the damage in the Brazil incident:

http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20011217-0
 
LTC8K6 said:
It's a 23 year old 737.

13/07/1990 Euralair Horizons F-GGML
01/06/1992 Air France F-GGML
15/07/1995 Uganda Airlines 5X-USM
17/02/2000 Rio Sul PT-SSI Stored 08/2005 at Mexico City
01/09/2005 Blue Air YR-BAB
17/05/2008 Bulgaria Air LZ-BOY
19/12/2008 Tatarstan Air VQ-BBN
Crashed 17/11/2013, On landing In Kazan, Killing 44 passengers and 6 crew ]

Aircraft Registration Database

PT-SSI Boeing 737-53A 24785
Remarks: 17.2.00, severe damage after partly collapse of maingear Belo Horizonte (SBCF), Brasil 17.12.01,

Info on the damage in the Brazil incident:

http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20011217-0
Click to expand...
.
Look where it's been!
I'm surprised it could even fly at all!
 
One week in the Tristar certification program, we did 242 stalls for the FAA.. their chief pilot did most of them. (I was one of the instrumentation engineers on all of these,)
At no time did the nose of the plane get anywhere close to a vertical nose-down attitude.
Some of the chief pilots for some of the airlines we were selling L-1011s to were not all that great at flying.
Pulled too many g's when turning, far exceeded the max level speed permitted.. landed way too long on the runway.
Scary things, but never lost a plane in this manner.
 
I Ratant said:
One week in the Tristar certification program, we did 242 stalls for the FAA.. their chief pilot did most of them. (I was one of the instrumentation engineers on all of these,)
At no time did the nose of the plane get anywhere close to a vertical nose-down attitude.
Some of the chief pilots for some of the airlines we were selling L-1011s to were not all that great at flying.
Pulled too many g's when turning, far exceeded the max level speed permitted.. landed way too long on the runway.
Scary things, but never lost a plane in this manner.
Click to expand...
See post 7, 8, 9 and 10 for a possible clue as to why...
especially the "Severe Damage" thingie...
 
Delvo said:
It doesn't take much to change a plane's orientation when aerodynamic stall (failure to generate enough lift for stable forward flight, generally because of forward speed being too low) is involved. It makes the plane unstable, meaning even a fairly small disturbance in any direction can lead to a positive feedback in which the forces pushing the plane out of alignment only keep pushing harder the farther out it already is. The results of a search for plane crash videos will be full of examples of planes unnaturally rapidly pitching, rolling, or rolling-then-yawing, right before starting to plummet or while plummeting.
Click to expand...

Cleon said:
I wouldn't presume it's intentional just yet. USAir 427 hit the ground at a similar angle.
Click to expand...

Hmm okay, I find these convincing points.

Now the question: what kinds of failure might have caused this particular stall and uncontrollable pitch-over, versus what kinds of pilot error?

It would be helpful to have a map or photo that would give us an exact position of the impact vis-a-vis the airport, as this would help us at least determine what phase of the landing the aircraft was in at time of failure. Is such available for this accident? I'm not holding my breath...
 
jasonpatterson said:
According to Russian authorities (via Washington Post,) it looks like the crash amounts to gross incompetence on the part of the pilots. No reports of any equipment issues at all. Apparently they climbed too steeply, lost too much speed, then overcompensated into the ground.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/video-shows-russian-plane-hitting-ground-at-near-vertical-angle-in-crash-that-killed-50-people/2013/11/18/6b0756f2-50af-11e3-9ee6-2580086d8254_story.html
Click to expand...

A quote from your link
The head of Tartarstan Airlines, Aksan Giniyatullin, told a news conference Tuesday in Kazan that the two pilots had plenty of flying experience — ranging from 1,900 to 2,500 hours — and had undergone all the necessary instruction. However, he said the crew apparently had no experience with attempting a second landing.
Click to expand...

I don't think we even need an investigation to determine the cause of this one. This is utterly incredible!
 
Delvo said:
It doesn't take much to change a plane's orientation when aerodynamic stall (failure to generate enough lift for stable forward flight, generally because of forward speed being too low) is involved. It makes the plane unstable, meaning even a fairly small disturbance in any direction can lead to a positive feedback in which the forces pushing the plane out of alignment only keep pushing harder the farther out it already is. The results of a search for plane crash videos will be full of examples of planes unnaturally rapidly pitching, rolling, or rolling-then-yawing, right before starting to plummet or while plummeting.
Click to expand...

Aerodynamic stalls are not due to lack of speed - they are due to exceeding the wing's critical angle of attack. Also, most certificated aircraft are stable in the stall. The stuff you see on videos is usually from improper control inputs (or, if it's aerobatics, deliberate inputs).

It is conceivable that the crew over-pitched during a go-around, stalled, didn't recover properly, and allowed the plane to crash in a near-vertical attitude (which would happen if the CG is ahead of the center of lift). But that would be such amazing gross incompetence, I have a lot of trouble believing that. Maybe a low-time, poorly trained private pilot, but airline pilots, regardless of where they're from...
 
A 737 will pitch up with high power. If you don't know that and fail to adjust, you can easily end up in a stall on a go-around.

From Avherald:

On Nov 19th 2013 the MAK reported that first read outs of the flight data recorder revealed that the crew did not follow the standard approach profile, went around due to considering the approach as unstable (attitude not within stable approach parameters), the engine thrust levers were moved to TOGA and the autopilot disconnected, the aircraft was under manual control for the remainder of the flight. While the engines accelerated to near takeoff thrust, the flaps were reduced from 30 to 15 degrees, the gear was retracted and the aircraft pitched up to about 25 degrees nose up, the indicated airspeed began to decay. Only after the airspeed had decreased from about 150 KIAS to 125 KIAS the crew began to issue control inputs to counter the nose up, the climb was stopped while the nose was lowered by control inputs. The aircraft reached a maximum height of 700 meters (2300 feet and began to rapidly descend until the aircraft impacted ground at a nose down attitude of 75 degrees at a speed of 450 kph (242 knots) about 20 seconds after reaching the maximum height of 700 meters. The engines were operating nominally until impact, the flight data recorders did not reveal any system malfunction. The cockpit voice recorder was not found inside its container, the assembly is missing and a search is under way.
Click to expand...
 
I flew into Domodedovo on Sunday morning, in an ageing 737 300 belonging to Orenair and left around 17:50 on a (possibly older) BA 747.
I almost certainly saw some of these people in the airport.
Many local airlines in the CIS use elderly 737s.
 
SUSpilot said:
Aerodynamic stalls are not due to lack of speed - they are due to exceeding the wing's critical angle of attack. Also, most certificated aircraft are stable in the stall. The stuff you see on videos is usually from improper control inputs (or, if it's aerobatics, deliberate inputs).

It is conceivable that the crew over-pitched during a go-around, stalled, didn't recover properly, and allowed the plane to crash in a near-vertical attitude (which would happen if the CG is ahead of the center of lift). But that would be such amazing gross incompetence, I have a lot of trouble believing that. Maybe a low-time, poorly trained private pilot, but airline pilots, regardless of where they're from...
Click to expand...

Yes. But I had a hard time believing airline pilots would let a plane get thirty knots slow on a day VFR approach, too.
 
rwguinn said:
See post 7, 8, 9 and 10 for a possible clue as to why...
especially the "Severe Damage" thingie...
Click to expand...
.
Yeah, if the paperwork followed the plane, the number of unincorporated Air Worthiness Directives should set a record!
One has to work very hard at crashing a 737. The airframe is quite robust, but.... what is the "quality" of the pilots?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom