Russian Airline Crash- 71 Dead

Very sad- Be interesting to see what the root cause was
 
Tragic indeed. One article mentioned ‘weather’ and ‘crew error’ as early possibilities. Yes, those two are usually places to look early on, regardless of actual events.

That plane doesn’t seem to have a very good safety record either.
 
During one of my classes I usually talk about faulty Russian airliners to describe the clock and wavefront model of somitogenesis. One year I had a Russian student, so I sheepishly said that the Russian thing was just based on pilot stereotypes and probably had no reflection in the real world. She forcefully corrected me, and said that Russian airliners were horrid and she hated flying on them.
 
I have a good friend from Russia. When we were living in Berlin he was going home for Christmas, and I asked if he was going Aeroflot. He said, "No, I want to get there alive."
 
mryan75 said:
I have a good friend from Russia. When we were living in Berlin he was going home for Christmas, and I asked if he was going Aeroflot. He said, "No, I want to get there alive."
Click to expand...
Aeroflot was great the times I flew it, but those were all on the A320.
 
The airspeed may of been correct, until they entered icing. It sounds like it was winter weather.
 
I don't know how common it is on real jets, but An-148 has an on-off switch for the 3 pitot heat circuits, and the heaters are limited to 2 minutes while on the ground per POH ("RLE"). I guess the heating elements will burn out without airflow over the pitot probes. The across-the-town rivals from Sukhoi were quick to point out that on SSJ-100 it is safe to turn the pitot heat on while on the ground.
 
zaitcev said:
I don't know how common it is on real jets, but An-148 has an on-off switch for the 3 pitot heat circuits, and the heaters are limited to 2 minutes while on the ground per POH ("RLE"). I guess the heating elements will burn out without airflow over the pitot probes. The across-the-town rivals from Sukhoi were quick to point out that on SSJ-100 it is safe to turn the pitot heat on while on the ground.
Click to expand...

Many jets have a limitations on running hot deicing systems on the ground. Some them cost lots of money to fix if that limitaion is exceeded.
 
zaitcev said:
I don't know how common it is on real jets, but An-148 has an on-off switch for the 3 pitot heat circuits, and the heaters are limited to 2 minutes while on the ground per POH ("RLE"). I guess the heating elements will burn out without airflow over the pitot probes. The across-the-town rivals from Sukhoi were quick to point out that on SSJ-100 it is safe to turn the pitot heat on while on the ground.
Click to expand...
Practically all of our probes on the CRJ are heated all the time as long as there is power (APU or external) available. On the ground they are heated at half power and once we have a weight off wheels signal, they’ll heat to full power. Not sure why they’d put a limitation on probes. They’re pretty important.
 
The preliminary report is out
https://mak-iac.org/upload/iblock/e07/report_ra-61704_pr.pdf
(all in Russian)

As it turns out, DMO tower instructed Saratov 103 to line up and wait ("занимайте исполнительный"). The crew ran the correct checklist for LINE UP AND WAIT, but consciously postponed turning on the pitot heat. {I speculate: they didn't know how long the wait was going to be.} This was a SOP, and BEFORE TAKEOFF checklist included the check. However, when tower cleared the flight for takeoff, they started the takeoff without running BEFORE TAKEOFF checklist whatsoever. Ironically, the FMS was displaying 3 warning messages "pitot heat off" throughout the incident. It was also displaying "aux fuel pump #2 failed", commission didn't comment on that.

The airplane didn't break up in the air despite reaching a high subsonic speed in the dive. At the moment of the impact, the fuel was atomized and then exploded with the air. The maximum distance the airframe parts were found was 4.5 km from the point of impact (2.42 nm), along the prevailing wind direction. Apparently they descended on the ground from the plume of the explosion as it traveled with the wind.

P.S. The Saratov filed a petition at Rosaviation (Russian FAA, basically) to lift the limitation they were under since the crash, but one of the annexes was a list of the aircraft and guess what -- it included the jet that crashed. The chief of Rosaviation got really mad and said they are going to withdraw the certification of an air carrier from Saratov. Methinks the airline is finished. Or should be, but their boss is a close friend of A. Chubais, so...
 
I remember having a standards committee meeting in St. Petersburg in 2000. Rode in and out on LH. After landing, while taxiing to the international terminal, I was looking out the window at a bunch of old Russian airliners. Looked like a boneyard to me, until I realized that they were still flying those things. No way! Now, I did ride S7 airlines in and out of Vladivostok last year, but they were short flights on western airliners. Aeroflot was the cheapest option for going home, but it was Vladivostok to Moscow to LAX on Aeroflot and then LAX to SEA on Alaska. Instead I rode S7 to Incheon and then Asiana (against my wishes to avoid them after that 777 in SFO) direct to SEA. Faster, but $700 more expensive.
 
I still think of the Boeing 777 as a "new" type (I recall seeing the first one flying over Seattle on a test flight in 1995), so it seems odd to see them being scrapped now. I watched one being ripped apart a few weeks ago at a refurb/scrapping yard adjacent to my home field, and there are some others there awaiting the same fate. They're all in the liveries of "independent" Russian airlines, Orenair and Nordwind. They must have had a tough life.


One thing -- the Russian carriers don't believe in wasting runway on takeoff. :eek:

Screen Shot 2018-06-15 at 6.45.21 AM.png

Screen Shot 2018-06-15 at 6.45.49 AM.png
 
Pilawt said:
I still think of the Boeing 777 as a "new" type (I recall seeing the first one flying over Seattle on a test flight in 1995), so it seems odd to see them being scrapped now. I watched one being ripped apart a few weeks ago at a refurb/scrapping yard adjacent to my home field, and there are some others there awaiting the same fate. They're all in the liveries of "independent" Russian airlines, Orenair and Nordwind. They must have had a tough life.


One thing -- the Russian carriers don't believe in wasting runway on takeoff. :eek:

View attachment 64091

View attachment 64092
Click to expand...
Those pics remind me of the old 'one day these people aren't going to scream to tell us when to rotate, and we're going to run right off the end' joke.
 
Ghery said:
Instead I rode S7 to Incheon and then Asiana (against my wishes to avoid them after that 777 in SFO) direct to SEA.
Click to expand...
I think the worst part about the Asiana is not that one of their captains got onto the back of the power curve and didn't know what it was. It was bad, but hey. At least he didn't overrun the runway, like the SWA guys are apt to do. No, the worst part was that in 2 years another Asiana captain has done exactly the same thing at Hirosima. Nobody died that time, but there were some serious injuries. That tells me that the management of Asiana did not extract any lessons from hiring pilots who have no clue about lift/drug/thrust/weight. The whole airline needs a serious shake-up.
 
I am missing something.
Even if the ASI was whacked, why would they fly it into the ground?
 
Ghery said:
I remember having a standards committee meeting in St. Petersburg in 2000. Rode in and out on LH. After landing, while taxiing to the international terminal, I was looking out the window at a bunch of old Russian airliners. Looked like a boneyard to me, until I realized that they were still flying those things. No way! Now, I did ride S7 airlines in and out of Vladivostok last year, but they were short flights on western airliners. Aeroflot was the cheapest option for going home, but it was Vladivostok to Moscow to LAX on Aeroflot and then LAX to SEA on Alaska. Instead I rode S7 to Incheon and then Asiana (against my wishes to avoid them after that 777 in SFO) direct to SEA. Faster, but $700 more expensive.
Click to expand...
The Germans call Aeroflot Aeroschrott, Schrott being the German word for junk.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top