Tu 154 at Domodedovo

An open discussion of aviation safety related issues.

Moderators: FrankM, el, Dmmoore

User avatar
Rabbi O'Genius
Posts: 748
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 12:37 am
Location: Hauts de Seine

Tu 154 at Domodedovo

Postby Rabbi O'Genius » Sat Dec 04, 2010 2:13 pm

......never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee. – John Donne

User avatar
3WE
Posts: 4771
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2008 2:37 pm
Location: Flyover, America

Re: Tu 154 at Domodedovo

Postby 3WE » Sat Dec 04, 2010 5:35 pm

Yayhoo's story has two engines failing enroute and the third failing just before landing.
Commercial Pilot, Vandelay Industries, Inc., Plant Nutrient Division.

User avatar
VectorForFood
Posts: 859
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 1:49 am

Re: Tu 154 at Domodedovo

Postby VectorForFood » Sun Dec 05, 2010 12:34 am

Fuel?

User avatar
DeskFlyer
Posts: 584
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 12:50 am
Location: Melbourne

Re: Tu 154 at Domodedovo

Postby DeskFlyer » Sun Dec 05, 2010 1:14 am

Fuel unlikely, apparently had only just taken off.
Darth: Luke, I know what you are getting for Christmas.
Luke: Noooo! That's impossible.
Darth: I felt your presents.

User avatar
Rabbi O'Genius
Posts: 748
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 12:37 am
Location: Hauts de Seine

Re: Tu 154 at Domodedovo

Postby Rabbi O'Genius » Sun Dec 05, 2010 2:55 am

Fuel unlikely, apparently had only just taken off.


Then again, no fire in spite of lots of stuff getting ripped off......
......never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee. – John Donne

User avatar
3WE
Posts: 4771
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2008 2:37 pm
Location: Flyover, America

Re: Tu 154 at Domodedovo

Postby 3WE » Sun Dec 05, 2010 3:32 am

Fuel unlikely, apparently had only just taken off.
Vector didn't say out of fuel. It could be bad fuel, or one of those one-in-a-zillion ice issues like BA, or any number of things that might be clear when the final report is issued.
Commercial Pilot, Vandelay Industries, Inc., Plant Nutrient Division.

User avatar
flyboy2548m
Posts: 3901
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 12:32 am
Location: Ormond Beach, FL

Re: Tu 154 at Domodedovo

Postby flyboy2548m » Sun Dec 05, 2010 1:32 pm


Vector didn't say out of fuel. It could be bad fuel...
In a miraculous development, I would agree with Vector if that is, in fact, what he meant.
"Lav sinks on 737 Max are too small"

-TeeVee, one of America's finest legal minds.

User avatar
monchavo
Posts: 867
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2008 9:21 am

Re: Tu 154 at Domodedovo

Postby monchavo » Sun Dec 05, 2010 3:30 pm

I am amazed (and very glad) that only two fatalities were the outcome of this event, considering the astonishingly destroyed nature of the fuselage!

Mind you - if memory serves me the A320 mulhouse fuselage was completely fúcked up and only 3 lost their lives that time... very curious...

Fupduc
Posts: 7
Joined: Thu May 08, 2008 5:40 pm
Location: CNV8

Re: Tu 154 at Domodedovo

Postby Fupduc » Sun Dec 05, 2010 4:56 pm

Vector didn't say out of fuel. It could be bad fuel
Methinks tanks full of bad fuel will burn quite nicely in a crash. No fire here. :!: :?: :!:

User avatar
rattler
Posts: 921
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 6:41 pm
Location: Med
Contact:

Re: Tu 154 at Domodedovo

Postby rattler » Sun Dec 05, 2010 5:05 pm

Fuel unlikely, apparently had only just taken off.
Obviously, with all engines failing, fuel is the first thing that comes to mind, in whatever scenario: Fuel shortage, contamination, pumps failure, etc.

Next thing coming to mind to see all thre engines go offline would be electical issues, icing (supercold rain ingestion?) or birdstrike.

Rattler
Sincere condolences to all Norwegians! I guess you will need some aquevit to get over this.

User avatar
flyboy2548m
Posts: 3901
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 12:32 am
Location: Ormond Beach, FL

Re: Tu 154 at Domodedovo

Postby flyboy2548m » Sun Dec 05, 2010 5:13 pm

Obviously, with all engines failing, fuel is the first thing that comes to mind, in whatever scenario: Fuel shortage, contamination, pumps failure, etc.

Next thing coming to mind to see all thre engines go offline would be electical issues, icing (supercold rain ingestion?) or birdstrike.

Rattler
I'm not aware of a single case of a -154 (or a 727, or a -1011) ever losing #2 engine due to a birdstrike. I'm very curious what the failure sequence was in this case. Trust me, it's important.
"Lav sinks on 737 Max are too small"

-TeeVee, one of America's finest legal minds.

User avatar
el
Posts: 1942
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2008 11:42 am
Location: Tip of Africa

Re: Tu 154 at Domodedovo

Postby el » Sun Dec 05, 2010 7:22 pm

I'm not aware of a single case of a -154 (or a 727, or a -1011) ever losing #2 engine due to a birdstrike. I'm very curious what the failure sequence was in this case. Trust me, it's important.
According to some reports #2 was the last one to give up.

User avatar
rattler
Posts: 921
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 6:41 pm
Location: Med
Contact:

Re: Tu 154 at Domodedovo

Postby rattler » Sun Dec 05, 2010 9:01 pm

I'm not aware of a single case of a -154 (or a 727, or a -1011) ever losing #2 engine due to a birdstrike. I'm very curious what the failure sequence was in this case. Trust me, it's important.
My thoughts exactly.

From what I have read (from hearsay translations, so nothing firm), #2 went offline and came on again later to be working until TD. According to those sources the Tu had lost all hydraulics, generators and had to rely on backup instruments.

Ria Novosti:
Two engines of a Dagestan-bound Tupolev-154 plane turned off at a height of about 9 kilometers, when one continued to function until landing after a period of unstable operation, the Interstate Aviation Committee (MAK) said.

The MAK carried out preliminary decoding of the flight recordings. Earlier reports said that all three engines failed.

The engines of the Dagestan Airlines' Tu-154 plane successively failed several minutes after it took off from Moscow's Vnukovo Airport.

"Preliminary analysis of records showed that during the period from 14:00 to 14:02 Moscow time (from 11:00 to 11:02 GMT) (according to the data recorder) crew launched the aircraft engines. Approximately 19.5 tons of fuel were on board. Take-off was made at 14:08 Moscow time (11:08 GMT). Fluctuations in the supply of fuel for all three engines have begun to register at a height of about 6500 meters around 14:16 (11:16)," the statement said.

"At a height of about 9000 meters the first and the third engines turned off, then the crew began an emergency landing," the statement continued. "After a period of unstable operation the second engine was restored and operated until the landing of the aircraft."
The investigation continues.
Other Russian agencies reported the landing was gears up, though I doubt it looking at the pictures which seem to suggest gear had been deployed. The commander apparently survived with minor injuries (FE grave), looking at the cockpit section in the pictures close to a miracle, methinks.

http://en.rian.ru/russia/20101204/161627011.html
The number of the injured in the Moscow plane accident has reached 83 people, Russia's Health Ministry said on Saturday.

Earlier the ministry reported about 56 injured.

"According to the latest information, 83 people were sent to hospitals after the Tu-154 plane accident," a spokesperson for the Health Ministry said.

The aircraft departed for the southern Russian city of Makhachkala from Moscow's Vnukovo airport at 2.07 pm Moscow Time (11.07 GMT). Several minutes after the take-off all three engines of the plane had failed and the jet made an emergency landing at Moscow's Domodedovo Airport.

Russia's Federal Air Transport Agency, Rosaviatsia, said that along with the engines, Tu-154 also had its power sources and navigation equipment failed.
Rattler
Sincere condolences to all Norwegians! I guess you will need some aquevit to get over this.

Fupduc
Posts: 7
Joined: Thu May 08, 2008 5:40 pm
Location: CNV8

Re: Tu 154 at Domodedovo

Postby Fupduc » Mon Dec 06, 2010 4:09 pm

Crew lands dead stick, IFR in freezing rain. Nineteen tons of fuel aboard, overruns and breaks in half, and no fire. Miracle indeed.

User avatar
Gabriel
Posts: 1853
Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2008 2:55 am
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina

Re: Tu 154 at Domodedovo

Postby Gabriel » Tue Dec 07, 2010 1:54 am

Crew lands dead stick, IFR in freezing rain. Nineteen tons of fuel aboard, overruns and breaks in half, and no fire. Miracle indeed.
BA's 777 crashing short of the runway at Heathrow. Lost thrust on both engines, tones of fuel leaked after the crash, yet no fire.
Turkish's 737 crashing short of the runway at Amsterdam. Fuselage broken in three. Tones of fuel on board. No fire.

Hazmat
Posts: 128
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2009 9:00 pm

Re: Tu 154 at Domodedovo

Postby Hazmat » Tue Dec 07, 2010 2:20 am

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwywfVK- ... r_embedded

No wheels down, really struggling to get it back on the runway.

Fupduc
Posts: 7
Joined: Thu May 08, 2008 5:40 pm
Location: CNV8

Re: Tu 154 at Domodedovo

Postby Fupduc » Tue Dec 07, 2010 5:08 am

Tones of fuel on board. No fire.
Yeah. That's a real common scenario.

User avatar
rattler
Posts: 921
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 6:41 pm
Location: Med
Contact:

Re: Tu 154 at Domodedovo

Postby rattler » Tue Dec 07, 2010 1:55 pm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwywfVK- ... r_embedded

No wheels down, really struggling to get it back on the runway.
Definitely possible, though in the vid it seems front gear deployed.

Image

Still, my assumption, which stems from the pic below, might stand corrected.

Image

Coming in really fast, it does appear, but maybe that is necessary for this type of a/c to avoid stalling (any 727/MD80 jockeys can confirm?). Even after viewing a few times cannot clearly see flaps deployed or not, interesting landing for the crew methinks, and looks they not only did aquite well but on top were very lucky to only lose one sould due to impact (the other fatal casuality apparently was due to a cardiac after the landing)

Rattler
Sincere condolences to all Norwegians! I guess you will need some aquevit to get over this.

User avatar
Giles
Posts: 1791
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2008 12:35 pm

Re: Tu 154 at Domodedovo

Postby Giles » Tue Dec 07, 2010 5:09 pm

From pprune;

TV interview with co-pilot;
- We took off normally, climbed to 8600 m, got cleared to 9... errm, 10100 m - in fact, we should have had 11100 m but they told us to climb to 10100 for the time being, and while we were in a climb they would coordinate further clearances and clear us higher up. At 8600 m or about that, ENGINE FAILURE lit up, and fuel pressure started oscillating on FE's panel. And ENGINE FAILURE, too. While we tried to figure it out, what was wrong and how, the engine just quit, flamed out. So he [the FE] tells us: "That's it, we lost an engine, shut it off". So we shut it off. We were already at 9800 m or something like that. We immediately contacted UUDD and started a descent towards UUDD. In a turn - we hadn't even managed to lose any altitude - the same story, within 5-10 seconds, another engine quits - no. 3... errm, no. 1.
No. 3 was the first to quit, then no. 1, so we still had no. 2, but it worked quite inadequately, because the [fuel flow control] equipment didn't work - if you set 100% thrust, it might give you 70%, or 80%, who knows where it would stop. Practically, it wasn't an engine [you could rely on].
At 100 m AGL, when we dropped out of it [the overcast], we were already going across the runway. This is how the runway goes, here it starts, and this is how we were flying [shows an angle of about 60 degrees from the right], then we went that way [shows left of RWY], then turned this way [shows right of RWY], like a figure eight, and then touched down out there, at the end of runway. We had no control authority [grins], each half was ... [unintelligible, imitates yoke movements left and right]. No control, it doesn't obey controls if you have no hydraulics.
I have my own version of it, I don't know, it may happen, maybe they didn't add "Arctic" to the fuel [factual confusion, "Arctic" is a de-icing fluid].
- What was that they didn't add?
- "Arctic".
- Is it an additive?
- Yes, they add it to the fuel so it wouldn't freeze. If you don't add it there, then around 9 [thousand m], it may be as cold as -40 or -50, the fuel may freeze.
- It may turn into jelly you can't pump?
- Yes, it won't give you any fuel pressure.

and now this;
Today, officials reported, that no problem with fuel have been discovered so far.

User avatar
3WE
Posts: 4771
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2008 2:37 pm
Location: Flyover, America

Re: Tu 154 at Domodedovo

Postby 3WE » Thu Dec 09, 2010 1:56 am

Tones of fuel on board. No fire.
Yeah. That's a real common scenario.
Just like an airliner crashing in spite of extreme safety precautions and extremely low odds...that's a real common scenario too.
Commercial Pilot, Vandelay Industries, Inc., Plant Nutrient Division.


Return to “Aviation Safety Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests