Tu 154 at Domodedovo
Posted: Sat Dec 04, 2010 2:13 pm
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.Fuel unlikely, apparently had only just taken off.
In a miraculous development, I would agree with Vector if that is, in fact, what he meant.
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.Vector didn't say out of fuel. It could be bad fuel
Obviously, with all engines failing, fuel is the first thing that comes to mind, in whatever scenario: Fuel shortage, contamination, pumps failure, etc.Fuel unlikely, apparently had only just taken off.
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.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
According to some reports #2 was the last one to give up.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.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.
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.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.
RattlerThe 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.
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.Crew lands dead stick, IFR in freezing rain. Nineteen tons of fuel aboard, overruns and breaks in half, and no fire. Miracle indeed.
Yeah. That's a real common scenario.Tones of fuel on board. No fire.
Definitely possible, though in the vid it seems front gear deployed.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.
Just like an airliner crashing in spite of extreme safety precautions and extremely low odds...that's a real common scenario too.Yeah. That's a real common scenario.Tones of fuel on board. No fire.