Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Boeing Crash in Russia

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by AVION1 View Post
    Are they still using periscopes and sextants in russia for aircraft navigation?
    What a crass post.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
      twa
      That was not fuel, but vapors. But yes, an empty tank could explode.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Evan View Post
        I wouldn't put too much credence in that video just yet. Official reports completely contradict a dive and disintegration scenario.
        The wreckage seems consistent with a hard fall out of the sky vs a bad landing. No semblance of a fuselage or anything else.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by xspeedy View Post
          That was not fuel, but vapors. But yes, an empty tank could explode.
          Not sure if you mean that the vapor was not of fuel (maybe it was water vapor?), if the vapor was not a fuel in itself (not able to oxidize violently and exothermically), or if a tank that is not empty cannot explode (anything except 100% full will have fuel vapors mixed with whatever other gas is there, for example, O2 from the air).

          --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
          --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by xspeedy View Post
            The wreckage seems consistent with a hard fall out of the sky vs a bad landing. No semblance of a fuselage or anything else.
            Agree:



            Aviation Herald - News, Incidents and Accidents in Aviation

            --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
            --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Highkeas View Post
              Jet fuel wil not detonate.
              1) What Gabriel said.

              2) I know that it's burning behavior is somewhat different from gasoline.

              3) But with a diesel engine running at 2500 RPM, it sure does burn fast.

              4) And you crash a plane into a ground- you get a really big fire ball really fast too.

              5) If you want to split hairs, I am sure there is also a finite time as the fire front moves across a ball of vaporized gasoline when you crash a gas tank into the ground at 300 knots...

              ...no, not as slow as with kerosene/diesel...but I think both make a loud bang and you don't want to be standing next to the slow pressure front any more than the fast one...
              Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

              Comment


              • #37
                Try not to get too hipster and know it all. Detonations can occur in solid, liquid or gas with shock wave and all.
                Live, from a grassy knoll somewhere near you.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Last night I read the Accident Report for AF821 that crashed in Perm in 2008.

                  It's on this website. http://www.aaib.gov.uk/home/index.cfm.

                  I found it rather an amazing read. We all know that crashes usually have multiple causes but that one had an absolute plethora. There were so many mistakes made by Crew, Maintenance staff, Instructors et al I thought the report was never going to end.

                  I am expecting something similar to be found here. The Investigation team will check out the Maintenance Records, the Crew, ATC, Airline Management and I believe they will find issues everywhere they look.

                  The reality is that the Safety Culture that Western Airlines (and the larger Eastern Airlines) have developed has not filtered down to many Smaller Airlines in the CIS and third world Countries. This fact is not really surprising when there are so many more pressing issues to be resolved, eg Road Safety, Health, Housing and perhaps the biggest issue of all - Corruption.

                  A lot of people used to think that Russian Aircraft were inherently unsafe because of their high crash rates. This conclusion never made much sense and anyone who read a few crash reports would quickly understand the Aircraft were never the problem in the first place (except for one design fault with the YAK-42 which was soon corrected).

                  But if further evidence was needed that it is not the brand of Aircraft you fly but how you fly and maintain it is what counts then this crash provides that evidence. As do all the other crashes involving Western Built Aircraft and Russian Airlines. Anyone who thinks they can improve safety by substituting Western Equipment for Russian Equipment is sadly mistaken.

                  Incidentally the British AAIB have also gone to Kazan and will be participating in this investigation. It sure will be an interesting report.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by AA 1818 View Post
                    The belief from Russian News Sources is that while they are investigating for structural failures as well as pilot error, they are not ruling out 'other activities' (not using the 't' word yet, because it will cause a major panic - and possibly souring relations between Russian and Tartarstan) due to the VIPs on board.

                    Also, from looking at the video - what proof do we have that it is really that aircraft - too blurry, too dark, perhaps too small. I don't know, and hopefully (yes, I know that that's a hopeful hopefully) we will get a report soon.
                    I believe the T- word was absolutely ruled out by some government official . I'll try to dig up the quote. It reeked of old school subterfuge .

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Leftseat86 View Post
                      What a crass post.
                      That was the standard instrument aboard Aeroflot some years ago. Have you ever seen those canopies on the Tupolev? they are for the sextant
                      The Boeing 707 used to come with a periscope, by the way. It was for a sextant too. Some pilots call it "eye brown windows". Before the invention of the LORAN, or INS. The sextant was the only way to navigate over the ocean or the poles.

                      A Former Airdisaster.Com Forum (senior member)....

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by AVION1 View Post
                        The Boeing 707 used to come with a periscope, by the way. It was for a sextant too. Some pilots call it "eye brown windows".

                        Where do you come up with this stuff? The 707 NEVER had a periscope!

                        Yes it did (And still does) have a sextant port. As did the 72 and all 74's until the 400.

                        Eye Brow windows are over the pilots and co-pilots heads, and have NOTHING to do with the sextant.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          I kind of like the idea of a periscope. Something to do in the middle of another long night...

                          The only 'periscope' you see on the 744 is a bored pilot or engineer sticking his head out of the overhead escape hatch on the ground

                          Nice way to have a significant advantage in a snowball flight with the flight attendants too...

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            I watched the video several times.

                            About a second before impact you see the "blink" of the engine beacon. You can see a tail that is lit, you can see the fuselage.

                            I have seen just about every accident video on Youtube, and I haven't seen this one before.

                            I asked an accident investigator (nationally known) what he thought about this and I was fortunate enough to get a reply. This is what he said:

                            Multiple approaches in bad weather with a potential mechanical is usually a bad combination - the security video I saw shows the airplane descending at a high rate of vertical speed into the ground.
                            I do work for a domestic US airline, and it should be noted that I do not represent such airline, or any airline. My opinions are mine alone, and aren't reflective of anything but my own knowledge, or what I am trying to learn. At no time will I discuss my specific airline, internal policies, or any such info.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/11...lot-maneuvers/

                              MOSCOW – The pilots of a Boeing 737 that plunged to earth at the Kazan airport, killing all 50 aboard, lost speed in a steep climb then overcompensated and sent the plane into a near-vertical dive, according to a preliminary report released Tuesday by Russian aviation experts.

                              The Moscow-based Interstate Aviation Committee, which oversees civil flights in much of the former Soviet Union, said the plane's engines and other systems were working fine until the moment the plane hit the ground Sunday night.

                              It said the plane's two pilots had failed to make a proper landing approach on the first attempt and then began a second run.

                              They put the plane's engines on maximum power, raising the plane's nose up at a sharp angle, causing a quick loss of speed.

                              At an altitude of about 2,200 feet, the crew then tried to gain speed by taking the plane into a dive but it hit the ground at a near-vertical angle in a spectacular crash.

                              The report drew its conclusions from data retrieved from one of the plane's onboard black box recorders. It said the climb and the subsequent plunge lasted only about one minute.

                              The plane struck the ground at about 280 mph, the report said.

                              The plane belonging to Tatarstan Airlines was coming from Moscow into the central city of Kazan, 450 miles to the east, the capital of the republic of Tatarstan.

                              A brief video taken by an airport security camera showed the plane going down at high speed at a nearly vertical angle and then hitting the ground and exploding.

                              Such "loss of control" accidents, as they are called in the aviation industry, are responsible for more deaths than any other type of air crash because they are rarely survivable, according to the Flight Safety Foundation, an industry-supported global aviation safety nonprofit based in Alexandria, Virginia.

                              Company records showed the plane was built 23 years ago and had been used by seven other carriers prior to being picked up by Tatarstan Airlines in 2008.

                              In 2001, it was damaged in a landing accident in Brazil that injured no one.

                              The company has insisted that the aircraft was in good condition and the pilots were experienced.

                              The carrier has had a good safety record but appears to have run into financial problems recently. Its personnel went on strike in September over back wages, and the Kazan airport authority has gone to arbitration to claim what it said was Tatarstan Airlines' debt for servicing its planes.

                              Industry experts have blamed some recent Russian crashes on a cost-cutting mentality that neglects safety in the chase for profits. Insufficient pilot training and lax government controls over the industry also have been cited as factors affecting Russian flight safety.
                              I do work for a domestic US airline, and it should be noted that I do not represent such airline, or any airline. My opinions are mine alone, and aren't reflective of anything but my own knowledge, or what I am trying to learn. At no time will I discuss my specific airline, internal policies, or any such info.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Can we then consider this a CFIT?

                                Pilots, you will have to answer this for me...I am assuming you are not trained to trade altitude for airspeed at 2200ft because you are trained not to put the aircraft in a stall attitude???
                                I do work for a domestic US airline, and it should be noted that I do not represent such airline, or any airline. My opinions are mine alone, and aren't reflective of anything but my own knowledge, or what I am trying to learn. At no time will I discuss my specific airline, internal policies, or any such info.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X