Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Kazakhstan plane crash: Bek Air flight with 100 onboard goes down at Almaty airport

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

  • Kazakhstan plane crash: Bek Air flight with 100 onboard goes down at Almaty airport

    At least 14 people have been killed after a plane with 98 people on board crashed in Kazakhstan, airport officials say.

    They say the Bek Air aircraft went down shortly after taking off at Almaty airport on Friday morning local time, smashing into a building.

    At least 60 injured people, including children, were taken to hospitals.

    Flight Z92100 was en route from Almaty, Kazakhstan's largest city, to the capital of Nur-Sultan.

    A Reuters reporter close to the scene said there was heavy fog in the crash area but the cause of the crash is not yet known. What's known about the crash?

    Almaty's airport said there were 93 passengers and five crew on board.

    It said the plane lost height at 07:22 local time (01:22 GMT), before striking a concrete barrier and crashing into a two-storey building. There was no fire upon impact.

    The airport later published the list of 60 survivors who were being treated at hospitals.

    Kazakhstan's interior ministry said six children were among the dead, citing preliminary information.

    The Flightradar24 aviation information website said the flight departed at 01:21 GMT, and "the last signal was received in that same minute". It said Bek Air Flight Z92100 was a Fokker 100 plane.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-50922219

    https://static01.nyt.com/images/2019...superJumbo.jpg

    https://www.flightradar24.com/data/a...f1007#23522307

  • #2

    Comment


    • #3
      From early interviews with survivors, citing roll instability and possibly buffet, it sounds like it wouldn't fly and perhaps stalled, perhaps due to icing as there was a report of passengers slipping on the icy wing during the evacuation.

      Comment


      • #4
        Evan, Add Bek to your no-fly list!

        On Jan 20th 2020 Kazakhstan's CAA reported that examination of the airline found a number of severe violations with respect to the airworthiness of their fleet, the condition of which was generally described as poor. The CAA reported amongst others: "Coupled with this, the most serious safety finding is that Bek Air has removed component data plates. These data plates have serial numbers to help track hours and cycles. This practice means the identity of engines can no longer be verified and that hours and cycles attributed to that engine no longer provable. Several engines with this problem have been identified, which casts doubt on all aircraft engines operated by Bek Air. In addition, Rolls Royce, the manufacturer of the Fokker-100 aircraft engines, reported that they have received no information about the overhaul of these engines since these aircraft were put into operation in Kazakhstan. Rolls Royce also further informed the Aviation Administration of Kazakhstan JSC that there is no procedure which would require the removal of a data plate, nor would Rolls Royce authorize such a procedure." The CAA wrote with respect to the accident:

        During the inspection of video evidence at Almaty Airport, it was discovered that the Bek Air Crews usually do not conduct a walk-around, or a wing check as instructed and required in the Bek Air’s operations manual.

        In the Fokker 28-100 aircraft operations manual, it clearly states that the aircraft wing MUST be checked prior to each flight and, unusually for aircraft of this type, the manual specifies how this check must be done. This procedure was introduced as an airworthiness directive after the 1993 crash in Skopje, Macedonia. The clean wing check requires a tactile check of the wing at three points along the leading edge on the upper surface, the lower surface and the front of the wing. The manual states that if there is ice present, then the all critical surfaces must be de-iced. Reviews of video footage of preparations of Bek Air aircraft do not show that this check was ever completed.

        Training records show no evidence of winter operations training being conducted. No training syllabus was produced to show that crews are trained to identify and treat ice risks for this type of aircraft.
        http://avherald.com/h?article=4d127dc6&opt=0

        --- 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


        • #5
          Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
          Evan, Add Bek to your no-fly list!


          http://avherald.com/h?article=4d127dc6&opt=0
          Thanks. I'll keep this in mind for whenever I travel to Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan.

          Comment


          • #6
            "In the Fokker 28-100 aircraft operations manual, it clearly states that the aircraft wing MUST be checked prior to each flight"

            "Because the manual says so.....?????!!!!!?????!!!!!

            How many eye-roll emoji's will I need.

            Evan mentality.

            Like, a walk around isn't required for just about every last plane ever built...Rogallo wing hang gliders, 152's, Cubs, Tommahawks, B-17's, DC-3s, Electras, 707 727 DC-9 L-1011, DC/MD 10/11, 747, Various Airbiiii.

            Should we do a walk around? I dunno, let's check the manual.

            PS: We see here just how effective that manual was to assure that the walk around happened.

            Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by 3WE View Post
              "In the Fokker 28-100 aircraft operations manual, it clearly states that the aircraft wing MUST be checked prior to each flight"

              "Because the manual says so.....?????!!!!!?????!!!!!

              How many eye-roll emoji's will I need.

              Evan mentality.

              Like, a walk around isn't required for just about every last plane ever built...Rogallo wing hang gliders, 152's, Cubs, Tommahawks, B-17's, DC-3s, Electras, 707 727 DC-9 L-1011, DC/MD 10/11, 747, Various Airbiiii.

              Should we do a walk around? I dunno, let's check the manual.

              PS: We see here just how effective that manual was to assure that the walk around happened.

              Never mind all that, I'm more curious about where they found an airworthy F100. For that matter, WHY they chose the F100 is probably an even better question.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by ATLcrew View Post
                Never mind all that, I'm more curious about where they found an airworthy F100. For that matter, WHY they chose the F100 is probably an even better question.
                This comment brings sadness. For a while we[no italics] had AA F-100's competing with TWA MD-80s flying moderately full aeroplanies between Flyover and Sweet Monkey River International Airports several times a day. Hell, they'd even cancel sometimes and just shift you over to the other airline...

                The MD-80s PRE and POST date the F100s.
                Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by 3WE View Post

                  This comment brings sadness. For a while we[no italics] had AA F-100's competing with TWA MD-80s flying moderately full aeroplanies between Flyover and Sweet Monkey River International Airports several times a day. Hell, they'd even cancel sometimes and just shift you over to the other airline...

                  The MD-80s PRE and POST date the F100s.
                  That's about the last time I saw one, when AA still has them coming into MSP. In fact, I witnessed one do a go-around from an approach to RWY 22.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by 3WE View Post
                    "In the Fokker 28-100 aircraft operations manual, it clearly states that the aircraft wing MUST be checked prior to each flight"

                    "Because the manual says so.....?????!!!!!?????!!!!!

                    How many eye-roll emoji's will I need.

                    Evan mentality.
                    Yeah... cuz it's just like a big Cessna... except... does the Cessna have inner collector tanks and larger outer wing tanks? If, for example, the fuel remaining in the larger outer tanks were to be much colder than the renewed fuel flowing into the inner collector tanks, that might create warmer upper skin temps on the inner wing and if the crew member doing the walkaround was only tall enough to inspect the top surface of the inner parts of the wing, where warmer fuel resulted in melting, he might come to the conclusion that deicing wasn't needed, and yet the colder outer wings would still be iced. Just like on a Cessna... or, no I guess not.

                    Maybe it wouldn't be a bad idea for the manual to point out this risk, as it did, after it happened in 1993. So it doesn't happen again. Evan mentality.

                    Of course if you don't read stupid manual because you are great brave airman of Kazakhstan, or super pilot of the millennium from Sweet Monkey River, you might just make the same mistake.

                    Originally posted by ATLcrew
                    Never mind all that, I'm more curious about where they found an airworthy F100. For that matter, WHY they chose the F100 is probably an even better question.
                    Iran, I expect. Although I think Skywest is still using them. I've heard that they're rather well-built, with EFIS and everything, but not well-suited to the post-recession penny-pinching shananigins.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      There's also this, if the F100 shares this same vulnerability with the F28:

                      Investigators found that a flaw in the design of the F28's wings made them extremely vulnerable to ice buildup. Because of the angle of the wings, even a very small amount of ice could have devastating effects. When the NTSB, in collaboration with Fokker, investigated the effect ice can have on an aircraft, they found that ice particles as small as 1-2mm of a density of one particle per square centimeter can cause a loss of lift of over 20%. A document written by Fokker before the accident detailed the effect of ice on the wing of an F28 warned that an "uncontrollable roll" would begin even with a small amount of ice on the wings.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Evan View Post

                        Yeah... cuz it's just like a big Cessna... except... does the Cessna have inner collector tanks and larger outer wing tanks?
                        Remember, all the words matter. Cessnas and F-100s should have a walk around.

                        Ironingly, 172s vary in fuel drain procedures...some have 3, some have 7. Water condensation tends to show itself at a particularly bad time...around and after V-2...the walk around and low point checks and visual level inspections are important.

                        Could the manual be important TO the walk around- maybe. As to whether you SHOULD do
                        a walk around...
                        Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by 3WE View Post

                          Remember, all the words matter. Cessnas and F-100s should have a walk around.

                          Ironingly, 172s vary in fuel drain procedures...some have 3, some have 7. Water condensation tends to show itself at a particularly bad time...around and after V-2...the walk around and low point checks and visual level inspections are important.

                          Could the manual be important TO the walk around- maybe. As to whether you SHOULD do
                          a walk around...
                          Not as black and white as you think. In the 1993 crash, the wings were inspected by the ground crew but they couldn't reach the top surface of the outer wing. A walkaround was delegated to the Flight Station Engineer who was very experienced. He reported that the parts of the wings he could access looked melted. Had he done the walkaround on stilts, he might have saved the day. Maybe that should be SOP...

                          US Air flight 405, a Fokker 28, had been properly deiced but too much time elapsed between the deicing anf the takeoff. The flight crew did not perform a walkaround of their airplane, and USAir procedures did not require them to do so. It wouldn't have saved them though.

                          I agree that the walkaround should never be skipped.

                          In both of these cases however, an abundance of caution, deicing because a threat existed regardless of what the wings looked like, would have been far more fruitful than a walkaround.

                          But that kind of worrying is just not cowboy.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by ATLcrew View Post


                            Never mind all that, I'm more curious about where they found an airworthy F100. For that matter,
                            Why would it be that difficult to find an airworthy F100? (genuine question)
                            And who said it was airworthy? From the results of the preliminary report it seems that neither the airplane, nor the pilot, nor the airline, nor Kazakhstan's CAA were airworthy.

                            --- 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


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Gabriel View Post

                              Why would it be that difficult to find an airworthy F100? (genuine question)
                              Most of them are pepsi cans by now.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X