airdisaster.info

Fuel unlikely, apparently had only just taken off.

Fuel unlikely, apparently had only just taken off.

Vector didn't say out of fuel. It could be bad fuel...

Vector didn't say out of fuel. It could be bad fuel

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Tones of fuel on board. No fire.

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

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

- 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.

Today, officials reported, that no problem with fuel have been discovered so far.

Tones of fuel on board. No fire.

Yeah. That's a real common scenario.