Aviation experts do not know of cases of Tu-154 aircraft landing in case of failure at altitude with all three engines and urge to abandon the operation of passenger aircraft of a similar type.
The crew of the Tu-154 of Dagestan Airlines, which made flight 372 from Moscow to Makhachkala at 14.07 Moscow time on December 4, a few minutes after departure from Vnukovo airport, informed the dispatchers about the failure of all three engines at an altitude of 9.1 thousand meters and made a decision on an emergency landing at the Domodedovo airport. As a result of an emergency landing, the plane drove off the runway and broke into several parts.
According to the transport prosecutor's office, there were 163 passengers and nine crew members on board, and there were seven children among the passengers. As a result of the emergency landing, two people died, about 60 people were injured.
WONDERFUL SALVATION
Miroslav Boychuk, the president of the trade union of the flight personnel of the Russian Federation, the commander of the Il-96 Aeroflot, who previously flew the Tu-154B and Tu-154M, expressed the opinion that it is possible to land an aircraft of the Tu-154 type when three engines failed at an altitude of nine kilometers, but for this it is necessary to show "remarkable skill".
“If at this altitude all the engines on an aircraft of this type fail, then we can plan (fly with the failed engines) another 120 kilometers. Here you need to show skill. The fact that they rolled out of the runway indicates that they, most likely, were insured and landed without reverse, ”Boichuk noted.
“They are great. What they did was a kind of miracle, ”said Boychuk, who flew the Tu-154B and Tu-154M for about five thousand hours, of which about two thousand hours as an aircraft commander.
In turn, another expert, the general director of the consulting company "Infomost" (lat) Boris Rybak told RIA Novosti that an aircraft of the Tu-154 type can be safely landed if the third engine fails at low altitude, but he noted that he had not heard of cases when aircraft Tu-154 was planted from a great height when three engines failed.
ALREADY NOT AT THE HEIGHT
Experts believe that the condition of aircraft of this type is no longer at the same height, and engine failures are a very alarming symptom, calling into question the further operation of aircraft in general.
The fisherman said that he knows a case when the pilots managed to land the plane without casualties when the third engine failed 10-15 meters from the ground.
“If the failure of the third engine after the failure of the first two occurs at a low altitude, then the plane can land, in particular, because the accumulators do not fail immediately. If all engines fail at a high altitude, then the plane is uncontrollable and it is impossible to land it, ”Rybak said, adding that he hadn’t heard about such cases, but if it happened, it’s“ great luck ”.
The expert believes that it is necessary to abandon the operation of aircraft of this type. “These aircraft and spare parts for them are no longer produced. Every year it becomes more and more difficult to maintain aircrafts of this type in a state of airworthiness, ”added Boris Rybak.
Those in the damaged Tu-154 got out of the plane without ladders - passenger
One of the passengers of the Tu-154 plane, who on Saturday accidentally sat down at the Moscow Domodedovo airport with failed engines, claims that the passengers got out of the collapsed plane on their own, since there were no ladders. The Federal Air Transport Agency says that all services prepared in advance for the evacuation of people and there were no problems with the ladders.
The Tu-154 aircraft of "Dagestan Airlines" crashed into the "Domodedovo" with failed engines, rolled out of the runway and partially collapsed. According to the latest data, two people were killed, 56 were injured. In total, there were 163 passengers and nine crew members on the plane, and there were seven children among the passengers.
“In the salon, mostly women were shouting. The stewardesses walked around and said: buckle up, don't get up. Only it is not clear why, when the doors were opened, not a single ladder worked at all. We ourselves descended, ”one of the passengers told RIA Novosti.
The Federal Air Transport Agency did not confirm these data.
“All ground airport services were ready to start their work in advance to evacuate and provide assistance to the injured. There were no problems with the ladders, ”a representative of the Federal Air Transport Agency told RIA Novosti.
“I didn’t have time to feel anything, I felt only when I saw the ground through the window. That's how it happens, I just had time to think, ”he said.
Earlier passengers emergency aircraft told RIA Novosti that the people in the cabin were scared, but tried to control themselves, support and comfort each other, especially children. According to the interlocutors of the agency, the crew did not begin to tell the passengers that the plane would have an emergency landing, they were only asked to buckle up.
In addition to engines, the crashed Tu-154 failed generators and navigation
MOSCOW, December 4 - RIA Novosti. In addition to three engines, the Tu-154 of Dagestan Airlines, which crashed at Domodedovo on Saturday, failed generators and navigation equipment, a representative of the Federal Air Transport Agency told RIA Novosti.
The crew of the Tu-154 of Dagestan Airlines, which made flight 372 from Moscow to Makhachkala at 14.07 Moscow time on December 4, a few minutes after departure from Vnukovo airport, informed the dispatchers about the failure of all three engines and made a decision to make an emergency landing at the airport Domodedovo.
“When the plane was at an altitude of 9,100 meters, then in addition to engine failure in the aircraft, there was a failure of generators and navigation equipment,” the agency's interlocutor said.
MOSCOW, December 4 - RIA Novosti. Aviation experts do not know of any cases of Tu-154 aircraft landing in case of failure at altitude with all three engines and call for abandoning the operation of passenger aircraft of this type.
The crew of the Tu-154 of Dagestan Airlines, which made flight 372 from Moscow to Makhachkala at 14.07 Moscow time on December 4, a few minutes after departure from Vnukovo airport, informed the dispatchers about the failure of all three engines at an altitude of 9.1 thousand meters and made a decision to make an emergency landing at the Domodedovo airport. As a result of an emergency landing, the plane drove off the runway and broke into several parts.
According to the transport prosecutor's office, there were 163 passengers and nine crew members on board, and there were seven children among the passengers. As a result of the emergency landing, two people died, about 60 people were injured.
Miraculous salvation
Miroslav Boychuk, the president of the trade union of the flight personnel of the Russian Federation, the commander of the Il-96 Aeroflot, who previously flew the Tu-154B and Tu-154M, expressed the opinion that it is possible to land an aircraft of the Tu-154 type if three engines failed at an altitude of nine kilometers, but for this it is necessary to show "remarkable skill".
"If at this altitude all the engines on an aircraft of this type fail, then you can plan (fly with the failed engines) another 120 kilometers. Here you have to show skill. The fact that they rolled out of the runway suggests that they are most likely insured themselves and sat down without reverse, "Boychuk noted.
"They are great. What they have done is a kind of miracle," said Boychuk, who flew the Tu-154B and Tu-154M for about five thousand hours, of which about two thousand hours as an aircraft commander.
In turn, another expert, the general director of the consulting company "Infomost" (lat) Boris Rybak told RIA Novosti that an aircraft of the Tu-154 type can be safely landed if the third engine fails at low altitude, but he noted that he had not heard of cases when the aircraft Tu-154 was planted from a great height when three engines failed.
Not up to par
Experts believe that the condition of aircraft of this type is no longer at the same height, and engine failures are a very alarming symptom, calling into question the further operation of aircraft in general.
The fisherman said that he knows a case when the pilots managed to land the plane without casualties when the third engine failed 10-15 meters from the ground.
"If the failure of the third engine after the failure of the first two occurs at a low altitude, then the plane can be landed, in particular, because the accumulators do not immediately fail. If the failure of all engines occurs at a high altitude, then the plane is uncontrollable and it is impossible to land it," Rybak said, adding that he had not heard of such cases, but if it happened, then it was "great luck."
I decided to combine it in one post. The topic is daunting, but maybe it will be interesting for someone to read it in one post. For possible jambs, I ask you not to hit hard, I will try to fix it immediately.
A person's fear of flying is irrational. But often it is reinforced by poor awareness of the achievements of modern aviation.
For example engine failures. It seems to be common knowledge that a modern aircraft is capable of continuing to fly if one of the engines fails. But it is much less known that failure of ALL engines in flight does not necessarily lead to disaster. In the minds of many, a modern liner is an iron that can fly only using the thrust of the engines.
However, it is not. The airliners have a fairly high aerodynamic quality - for example, in Tu-204 it reaches 18. In fact, this means that the loss of a kilometer of altitude in a non-motorized flight, the plane is able to fly 18 km. If we take into account that the typical altitude of long-haul flights is 9-10 km (and in some conditions, the Tu-154 can reach up to 12 km), we get that the crew has 150-180 kilometers of range to the nearest airport. This is quite a lot - after all, they are trying to lay air routes over airports (http://aviaforum.ru/showpost.php?p\u003d231385&postcount\u003d3 - here you can take the track of a real flight Ulan-Ude - Moscow). The issue of power supply of the most important systems of the aircraft when the engines are inoperative is solved by the emergency turbine put forward into the flow.
Naturally, landing an aircraft with a completely failed power plant requires tremendous skill and luck from the crew. The reserve in height and range for planning on the airport runway is not enough - pilots need to very accurately land at a precisely calculated height. At the same time, they have no right to make a mistake - when flying or not flying, the plane will be outside the runway - and this is not an open field everywhere - in many airports, behind / in front of the runway, there are buildings or even residential buildings. In a normal situation, the liner will simply go to the second circle - in an emergency there is no such chance. At the same time, landing can take place in bad weather conditions with insufficient visibility - left without thrust, the liner is forced to land where it can plan - regardless of the weather and the crew's admission. In this case, it is often not possible to release the landing gear and the aircraft has to be landed on the fuselage. If the chassis was released, then when braking, it remains to rely only on the brakes - and their capabilities in this situation are usually insufficient ...
Despite the reliability of the technology, cases of failure of all engines are still not isolated. This happens for a number of reasons, often due to personnel errors when servicing the liner. Accordingly, there are cases of successful landings in such situations.
Civil aviation of the USSR / RF has not passed such incidents. Recently:
- landing in January 2002 Tu-204 AK Siberia with inoperative engines. The reason is full use of fuel.
- landing at Sheremetyevo Falcon. The reason is faults in the fuel system
But the most fantastic story happened in 1963. The nose landing gear of the Tu-124 flight Tallinn-Moscow was not removed. It was decided to land at Pulkovo. Due to the second malfunction - faulty fuel meters, one of the engines stopped on one of the circles. The dispatchers gave permission for the emergency board to pass over the city - and at an altitude of 450 m on Leningrad, the second engine stopped. Nevertheless, in such an extreme situation, the crew skillfully drove the liner over the bridges and sat down on the Neva - no one was hurt. IMHO - this landing is much more difficult than the Chkalov spans under the bridges.
Below the cut is a photo of Glider Gimli after landing. In the text, links to articles - there are more details about airplanes and incidents.
The crash of the Tu-154 aircraft of the 223rd flight unit of the Russian Ministry of Defense was one of the biggest tragedies of the outgoing year. There were 92 people on board, all of whom died. In every such case, the appearance of different versions what happened. "Lenta.ru" tried to understand what was happening.
NB: Everything that has been said below about the causes of the aircraft accident is a statement of versions that have not yet been officially confirmed. Until the publication of the official conclusions on the results of the investigation into the causes of the disaster, none of these versions can be considered true.
Circumstances
The Tu-154B-2 aircraft, tail number RA-85572, produced in 1983 at the Kuibyshev aircraft plant (now the Aviakor plant), was operated almost all the time by the Ministry of Defense - first as part of the 8th Special Purpose Air Division of the USSR Air Force, then - created in 1993 of the 223rd flight unit.
As of the day of the crash, the aircraft has about 11 percent of its flight life with an average flight time of just over 200 hours per year, which is relatively small for passenger linerswhich in civil aviation are operated with an intensity of 1000 or more hours per year. The assigned resource of the board was 37,500 hours, or 16 thousand landings, while it could be extended to 60 thousand hours and 22 thousand landings.
Tu-154B-2 has already been taken out of commercial operation due to non-compliance with accepted noise standards and high fuel consumption, but military vehicles are still in service.
The operator of the aircraft is the 223rd flight detachment of the Ministry of Defense, the Russian state aviation enterprise - provides air transportation in the interests of government agencies and performs irregular cargo and passenger Transportation, as a rule, the personnel of the armed forces. The enterprise was organized on the basis of the 8th Special Purpose Aviation Division (8 adOSNAZ, 8 adon) of the Russian Air Force in Chkalovsky in accordance with the presidential decree Russian Federation dated January 15, 1993 No. 37-rp "On ensuring the activities of the 223rd and 224th flight units of the Russian Ministry of Defense" for air transportation in the interests of government agencies.
The plane took off from the Chkalovsky airfield near Moscow and was supposed to land for refueling in Mozdok, however, due to weather conditions, the refueling airfield was changed to Sochi. The liner took off from Sochi at 05:25 and fell, according to available data, having spent two minutes in the air until the disaster.
The destination of the flight was the Russian Khmeimim airbase in Syria. The plane of the artists of the Aleksandrov military ensemble, journalists and their accompanying servicemen. In addition, Elizaveta Glinka, known as Doctor Liza, and the head of the culture department of the Ministry of Defense Anton Gubankov were on board.
Versions
The main publicly discussed versions of what happened boil down to three: equipment malfunction, piloting error, terrorist act... A concomitant circumstance for the first two could be the weather, but the available data on the actual weather conditions in Sochi at the time of the disaster suggest that they were quite acceptable:
Visibility 10 kilometers or more. Cloudiness in several layers: the lower layer is 5-7 octants (eighths), with the lower edge of 1000 meters, above it there is another layer, solid with the lower edge of 2800 meters, temperature +5, dew point +1, pressure of about 763 millimeters of mercury. The runways are dry. East wind 5 meters per second. At sea - wave height up to 0.1 meters.
All three versions can neither be confirmed nor ruled out until the official conclusions of the commission of inquiry, but one can try to "spread out on the table" the available information at least in order to organize it.
The last time the RA-85572 board was repaired was in December 2014, and in September 2016 it underwent scheduled maintenance. The total flight time of the aircraft for 33 years of operation was 6689 hours.
This age and resource is completely normal for liners in military operation. Thus, one of the main cargo-passenger aircraft of the US Air Force, the C-135 Stratolifter, built from 1956 to 1965, is still in operation, and the total service life of these aircraft may approach a century - they will remain in the Air Force at least until 2040 -s.
The Tu-154 itself belongs to reliable aircraft, at the same time, no aircraft are insured against technical problems, and, of course, this version will be one of the main ones.
The crew of the crashed liner is characterized as experienced. The Tu-154, which crashed in the Black Sea, was piloted by first class pilot Roman Volkov.
“The Tu-154 aircraft of the military transport aviation of the Ministry of Defense of Russia was flown by an experienced pilot, Roman Alexandrovich Volkov. Roman Volkov is a first class pilot. The total flight time is more than three thousand hours, "- in the military department to a TASS correspondent.
Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Petukhov - navigator of the crashed Tu-154B-2 - in April 2011 participated in the rescue "". Then an airplane of the same model landed at Chkalovsky airport with a faulty control system. The Tu-154B-2 RA-88563 was planned to be overtaken for repairs in Samara. After the plane took off, its control system was malfunctioning. The plane began to sway in the air and bounce, which was noticeable from the ground. Journalists later called the liner dancing.
Nevertheless, the plane was returned to the Chkalovsky runway thanks to the skillful actions of the crew. Petukhov was the navigator of the "dancing liner", along with his colleagues he was awarded the Order of Courage.
At the same time, taking off from coastal airfields has always been not the easiest procedure, and the Tu-154, especially in version "B", is described by many pilots as a fairly strict aircraft in control, making high demands on the pilot, which also does not allow to dismiss the version on the fly. possible tragic mistake. According to the civil aviation pilots, the experience of three thousand and a half hours for the commander of a vehicle of this class is insufficient.
Finally, given the political situation, a version of a terrorist attack cannot be ruled out, including due to the specific features of the organization of military flights. Unfortunately, the stringency of screening and security on military passenger flights is much less than on commercial airlines. As noted by many military personnel and civilians who have experience of flying by aircraft of the Ministry of Defense from Chkalovsky and other military airfields, pre-flight inspection on such flights, it often comes down to empty formalities in the form of checking the lists of passengers with documents, especially when “your” team is flying. When flying abroad - to Syria, for example - it is somewhat stricter (border formalities are included), but even in this case it does not compare with traditional measures in most civil airports in developed countries.
Under these conditions, it is possible to assume the presence of an explosive device on board, which could have been placed in the luggage of the liner during loading or carried on board during an intermediate landing in Sochi. In any case, the likelihood of such a development of events is not excluded by the special services, which have begun checking those who could have access to the plane at the airport of departure and in Sochi.
A variation of the version of the terrorist attack is the assumption put forward in some media about an attack on an aircraft using a portable anti-aircraft missile system, which could be carried out by terrorists either from a boat or from residential buildings on the coast, but this option is hardly possible, given that the deceased liner should have land in Mozdok, and if they intended to attack him when landing / taking off from the refueling airfield, he would be expected there.
Either way, the investigation has just begun. A plane crash into the sea can seriously complicate it - the steep depth difference in the Sochi region, where the continental slope drops sharply down at an angle of 45 degrees, by 500, 1000 or more meters, and a thick layer of silt will greatly complicate the search for the wreckage of the liner. The Il-18V plane that died in the same area in 1972 fell a little further from the coast - at a distance of about 10 kilometers, but its fragments went to a depth of 500 to 1000 meters, and neither large parts of the fuselage and wings, nor flight recorders could be found ...
Taking these conditions into account, every hour matters: with every hour, the debris that went under the water will sink deeper and deeper. This, obviously, is understood by all responsible persons - in Sochi, the diving elite of the Emergencies Ministry and the Russian Navy are being deployed - deep divers from all four fleets, with special equipment and underwater vehicles.
Well, today we'll talk about the fate of the Tu-154, once the mass aircraft in the USSR, and today it is being systematically decommissioned by all airlines. I will not hide that the reason for writing a note on this topic was outright slander about the plane, which can be read by visitors to the Lukomorye website (I will not specifically give a link so as not to contribute to the spread of this slander). It is clear, of course, that the site is mocking and does not pretend to be objectivity, but you need to know the boundaries where the banter ends and the frank omission of someone or something begins.
It should also be noted that the popular opinion formed by propaganda that Tu-154 is rubbish and junk, which is high time to give way to Airbuses and Boeings. This also includes the opinion that any domestic aircraft is obviously less reliable than a foreign one. And these opinions are prevalent in the country, which recently was the world leader in civil aviation. Shame!
So let's start with debunking myths:
About the accident rate, allegedly for the Tu-154. Once upon a time I came across a report on long-term data on the accident rate of certain types of airliners. So, in the first place was the B737, the second was the A310, and only the third was the Tu154. At the same time, the report concerned, among other things, the post-Soviet period, that is, it touched on the operation time of Tu154 in the poorest countries of the world, with inadequate maintenance, respectively. While "foreign cars" in these countries are used much less often and, accordingly, fall less often there. If we looked at Europe and the USA, the “carcass” would be even lower in this sad rating.
Unfortunately, I do not have links to the publication of the report data, but in order not to be unfounded and will not be accused of falsifying data, I propose a list of plane crashes for the past, 2010 - in total 7 planes were killed, of which 3 Boeing, 3 Airbus, and one Tupolev (http://www.airdisaster.com/cgi-bin/view_year.cgi?year\u003d2010). So the unreliability of our aircraft is a myth. We have made and, by the way, are doing reliable aircraft, albeit less comfortable and more "voracious", but reliable, that's a fact. If there is a desire to argue about the word "do", then here is an example - Tu-204. Throughout its history, operation (from 1996 to our time), the plane has not claimed a single life (there were accidents with it, but people always remained alive). Ask yourself a question - how many of the foreign liners, in 15 years of flights, have not suffered a single disaster ?!
On this, I think, the myths have been completely debunked and objective statistics have been brought out. Now, in fact, about the Tu-154 (more precisely, about the Tu-154M variant, which is operated today).
This aircraft is unique in the family of medium-range aircraft. The Tu-154, the only medium-haul aircraft that are massively used today in our country, has three engines (most similar machines - two). For a symmetrical arrangement of power plants, they were placed in the tail of the liner. This scheme there are pros and cons:
pros: The aircraft has a much higher thrust-to-weight ratio than models with two engines (under the wings), therefore, under normal conditions, it has a greater throttle response, a faster climb, and requires a smaller take-off strip. In case of failure of one of the engines, i.e. in a situation where any airliner with two power units is ordered to land immediately, the Tu-154 is able to continue its flight as usual. Moreover, with a normal runway length and not an exorbitant load, the Tu-154 is able to take off if one of the engines fails after the decision-making speed (i.e., the aircraft can survive in a situation where a twin-engine liner disaster is almost inevitable). In addition, the features of the air flow around the aircraft by an order of magnitude reduce the risk of a bird or other object getting into the engines. Moreover, the Tu-154, perhaps the only modern airliner, is capable of using unpaved airfields for takeoff and landing in the normal mode.
Minuses: The main disadvantage of a tail-mounted aircraft is its behavior at supercritical angles of attack. With a loss of speed and going to unacceptable angles, the plane behaves vilely - it does not shake, like most other liners, and it immediately goes into a stall, without preliminary symptoms. However, all indicators are displayed on the dashboard, and you just need to monitor the speed and angle of attack in order to avoid similar situations (which pilots are required to do on any liner). Another disadvantage is the practical impossibility of getting out of a flat spin (to which, as you know, an airplane gravitates when stalling). But, getting into these modes is purely a pilot's mistake, the plane itself does not get into such a situation. During the entire operation of the Tu-154 (1972), only two cars were lost for this reason, in both cases, it was the fault of the crew. It should also be noted that the centering of the aircraft is heavily "overwhelmed" in the tail, although this is a conditional minus (during takeoff, the nose strut comes off more easily, even if the baggage is misaligned).
Well common data “Carcasses” not related to engine placement. For example, on this plane, all vital components are duplicated three to four times. Which of the foreign cars can boast of this? The control does not provide for a computer component, therefore, in cases of failure (for example, in the event of a loss of electricity on board), the aircraft does not lose controllability, as it happens on "mega smart" bourgeois machines. A hydraulic, multiple-redundant system is the most reliable option.
So, as we can see, the aircraft, according to its technical data, is more reliable in relation to equipment failure, but more severe in terms of crew errors. Yes, indeed, the Tu-154 must be able to fly. There is no computer here that can do some of the work for the pilot - here you have to think and do it yourself. But in the hands of a pilot who knows how to fly on this plane (just like that, with a capital letter), this machine can be much better than any foreign analogues. Doubt? Here are just two points:
Failure of all generators in flight (probably due to improper maintenance) in the sky over the taiga. Any dismounted foreign liner in this situation would be doomed. But “Carcass” was put on ... an abandoned military airfield right in the taiga. The car not only survived the landing, but then took off and returned to service (http://anti.fishki.net/commentall.php?id\u003d101478).
Another moment - the "dancing plane" (for this request, the link can be found in the search engine), when, during the flight of the car, terrible problems with the control system were revealed, as a result of which the plane did not keep its course. Computer control would not allow to adequately control such an aircraft, and our "Carcass", thanks to the skill of the crew, was planted.
The list can be continued, as well as add to it the fall of bourgeois liners due to failures of computer equipment or sensors, but I think everyone already understands everything.
And so, the Tu-154 is a reliable and necessary aircraft, but why is he taken off the lines? The answer is simple - a direct order from President Medvedev, who, after a series of emergency situations with Tushki, gave an order to investigate the situation and begin decommissioning this type of aircraft. At the moment, only UTair has ignored the president's order and continues to use "Tushki". Another exploiter turned out to be the Air Force, which perfectly understands that there are simply no alternatives to the Tupolev car in a number of cases.
On my own I will add my personal impressions - I fly regularly and have been a passenger on different liners. The feeling on takeoff that you experience on the Tu-154 can only be compared with the Il-86 and Il-96, and even then, the Ilyushin is heavier and, in spite of the four engines, according to subjective feelings, has a lower thrust-to-weight ratio than the Carcass ". Lightweight, with three engines, Tupolev starts like a rocket, the fifth point is that the power of this machine is enough for any situation. But the bourgeois technique - it is much calmer and smoother, yes, more comfortable, but how to put it - it's like comparing a sports car and a Maybach. Yes, it is clear that the latter is more convenient, more comfortable, but that's just not the same. There's no power under the pedals, no stiff suspension that lets you feel the road. So it is with airplanes.
IMHO, it's too early to send the Tu-154 to rest, it still has enough work, and there is no adequate alternative to it yet.
