Russian Plane Down!

[Fly2e]

Just heard on the news, A Tupolev with 170 people has crashed into the ground somewhere in the Ukraine  :(

Dave

[Fozzer]

More details here...>>>

Russian plane crashes in Ukraine.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5274958.stm

Paul.

[Ivan]

Fire onboard at FL330, supposedly fell apart due to turbulence while doing emergency landing.

FYI: something that can happen to ANY plane (and not just to Russian ones as CNN makes you believe)

[EGNX]

[Hai Perso Coyone?]

Sad...I hate it when any airborne machine falls...

[ozzy72]

[beaky]

Fire onboard at FL330, supposedly fell apart due to turbulence while doing emergency landing.

FYI: something that can happen to ANY plane (and not just to Russian ones as CNN makes you believe)

Yahoo reports a lightning strike; might explain the fire.
Static wicks?

[C]

 Terrible waste of human life...
Looks like the Tu-154's record isn't something to be proud of...

I think that's a little misleading. The BBC carried an amazingly un sensational piece today which showed the 154s safety record to be quite good for the number built, and considering several of the accidents have been down to hostile action, friendly fire, ATC issues, and other human factors. 28 fatal crashes over 38 years is not a bad safety record really.

Here's an excerpt from the BBC article

Difficult conditions

Since its service entry, some 28 Tu-154s have been lost in accidents, a figure about normal for the quantity, years of service and technology of the type.

The Tu-154 operates in regions with not very good air traffic control and navigation equipment, and in very difficult weather conditions.

The Tu-154 accidents include a number that have little relation to the aircraft.

In 1982, an aircraft landing at Omsk in Russia in a heavy snowstorm - normal for Russian winters - hit six snowploughs that had not been told to leave the runway as the aircraft landed.

Freak accidents

About five have been shot down by enemy or terrorist attacks in Lebanon, Georgia and Afghanistan during the civil wars in those countries.

In 2001, a Tu-154 crashed into the Black Sea after being hit by a Ukrainian missile fired during exercises.

One landed safely in a field after its cargo of cigarettes caught fire but was completely burnt.

Another ran out of fuel five miles short of the runway when the state airline of an almost bankrupt country decided to carry less fuel from its base, where the price was high.

And Swiss air controllers have accepted full responsibility for a mid-air collision between a Tu-154 and a cargo plane in July 2002.

Few of the Tu-154 accidents appear to have involved technical failure.

The aircraft is likely to remain in service in Russia and former Soviet republics for another decade.

[EGNX]

I think that's a little misleading. The BBC carried an amazingly un sensational piece today which showed the 154s safety record to be quite good for the number built, and considering several of the accidents have been down to hostile action, friendly fire, ATC issues, and other human factors. 28 fatal crashes over 38 years is not a bad safety record really.

I agree that statistically, the Tu-154 has one of the poorest safety records. However, Tupolev 154's chequered safety record owes more to errors than technical problems. I was just stating that compared to other western airliners such as the Boeing 737's or Airbus A320's its safety record isn't that brilliant.

Here i quote the BBC...

The ageing Tupolev 154 remains popular with the airlines of the former Soviet Union, despite the emergence of safety fears following numerous crashes.

But obvioulsy alot of those crashes were down to mechanical problems aswell.
Personally i really like the Tu-154 and have even had the pleasure to fly on one. And this may sound strange but its poor safety record makes the plane, for me, more interesting and exciting, and for a pilot, more of a challenge to fly.

Heres a few Tu-154 crash analyses...

The aircraft crashed on its third attempt to takeoff. Two previous takeoff attempts had been aborted due to engine problems.

The aircraft broke up in-flight after a malfunction in the autopilot overstressed the airframe. Mechanical error.

The aircraft crashed on takeoff after the failure of all three engines.

The aircraft crashed while attempting an emergency landing due to an engine fire.

The aircraft crashed while on final approach after the elevator failed.

[SkyNoz]

[quote]

[C]

Fire onboard at FL330, supposedly fell apart due to turbulence while doing emergency landing.

FYI: something that can happen to ANY plane (and not just to Russian ones as CNN makes you believe)

Ivan has a very valid point. If you're in command of an aircraft on fire, you need to get on the ground as fast a possible (or use a parachute - not a player in this case really) - in the extreme case this could mean exceeding the operaton and design limitations, and with the potentially fatal risk of structural damage from the fire.

Heres a few Tu-154 crash analyses...

I see you picked all but two or three of the mechanical failure/aircraft failure related incidents to post... Here are the others, bar the one or two unknowns - mostly met, human errors and two or three shot down...

[Weather]The aircraft crashed short of the runway while landing in windshear conditions.

[Unknown]The aircraft crashed on approach. Cause unknown.

[Weather]/[Human Error]The aircraft was forced to divert from its original destination due to fog, and while the crew attempted to locate their alternate field, the aircraft ran out of fuel and crashed.

[Weather]The aircraft crashed on takeoff. Windshear.
     
[Human Error]The aircraft collided with two airport service vehicles which were on the runway while landing. Failure of the vehicles to inform ATC that they had entered the runway environment.

[Human Error]The aircraft crashed while attempting an emergency landing due to an engine fire. Crew error in mishandling a normal emergency situation.

[Human Error]The aircraft suffered an extremely hard landing after which the fuselage broke in two. Pilot error: improper landing technique.
     
[Human Error]After an abnormally hard landing, the landing gear collapsed and the aircraft broke into several pieces. Crew error: improper landing technique.

[Human Error]The aircraft crashed on takeoff due to a forward center of gravity condition. Loaded improperly.
     
[Human Error]The aircraft, leased from Russian airline Aeroflot, collided with an Iranian Air Force Sukhoi Su-24 fighter jet immediately after takeoff. The fighter jet was not cleared to be in the departure corridor.
     
[Hostile Action]The aircraft was shot down as it attempted to takeoff.

[Human Error]The aircraft crashed on approach. Pilot error.

[Human Error]The aircraft, cruising at the improper altitude, collided with a U.S. Air Force C-141 Starlifter. 9 on the C-141 killed in addition to the 24 on the Tupolev.

[Human Error]The aircraft crashed during approach. Descent below altitude authorized by ATC. Crew error.

[Weather]/[Human Error]Vladivostokavia Flight 352 operated on a flight from Yekaterinburg to Vladivostok with an intermidiate stop at Irkutsk. Two approaches to the airport were aborted. During the approach to land the aircraft suddenly made a 180-degree turn and crashed from an altitude of 2800ft. The aircraft broke up and burned.

[Human Error]/[Friendly Fire]The aircraft exploded while on a flight from Tel Aviv, Israel to Novosibirsk, Russia via Bugas, Bulgaria. The pilot of a nearby aircraft reported seeing the aircraft explode at 33,000 feet, fall into the Black Sea, and explode again on impact. Impacted by a Ukrainian S-200 surface to air missile, which had been fired as part of a military exercise being conducted in the Black Sea.

[Human Error]/[Weather]The aircraft crashed into mountainous terrain in poor weather conditions while on approach to Khorramabad on a flight from Tehran.

[Human Error]The aircraft, on a flight from Moscow, Russia to Barcelona, collided with a DHL Aviation Boeing 757 near Ueberlingen on the northern shore of Lake Constance
     

Thats 18 out of 28 accidents over which the aircraft design had little bearing over the outcome...

The aircraft crashed on its third attempt to takeoff. Two previous takeoff attempts had been aborted due to engine problems.

If the engine problems were that bad, were they sorted out properly - human error of some form again perhaps - press-on-itis?

[EGNX]

I agree that statistically, the Tu-154 has one of the poorest safety records. However, Tupolev 154's chequered safety record owes more to errors than technical problems.

And this may sound strange but its poor safety record makes the plane, for me, more interesting and exciting, and for a pilot, more of a challenge to fly.

Thats all im trying to say!  ;)

[C]

Thats all im trying to say!  ;)

Fair enough. I just thought you were a little harsh with the following comment, and the gist of your examples (we all know about the 737's rudder and ability to combust on take off).

I was just stating that compared to other western airliners such as the Boeing 737's or Airbus A320's its safety record isn't that brilliant

I did a little maths...

Using contemporary of the Tu-154, this is how it compares...

727 attrition - a little over 3% (3.2% using the accident data and the total of 1832) - the best direct comparision for configuration, age, and number built (1832)

737 - a little over 1.5% (but built in far greater numbers in both old and new forms)

154 - just over somewhere between 2 and 3 percent depending on the total built, which isn't the easiest number to find. I used 1000, giving 2.8%...

I'm also another who's been fortunate enought to sample the 154's delights too. It was also the only aeroplane I've been sick on - but I was ill with food poisoning at the time!

[EGNX]

I'm also another who's been fortunate enought to sample the 154's delights too. It was also the only aeroplane I've been sick on - but I was ill with food poisoning at the time!

Lol, Balkan Holidays?

[C]

Lol, Balkan Holidays?

The coconut is yours...

You could have said Tarom too...