Tweet
Looks like they realized that they would not have enough fuel to reach the diversion airport
-
moving quickly in air -
The discoloration near the wing root on the right side is mud right? Not soot.moving quickly in air -
Link?
--- 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
-
Bird strikes seem to be the predominant cause of controlled off-airport landings but they typically occur on take off (or go-around i guess). This does not feel like a bird strike. Indian flight 440 from 1993 (not 1973) or Hapag-Lloyd flight 3378 seem more relevant.
moving quickly in airComment
-
It might have been a "Special Landing Operation". If so, I'm impressed.
I tend to think, however, that it was a shabby A320 running on black market spares, losing green hydraulics and diverting to a longer airfield without factoring in heightened fuel burn. The report tells us that the diversion remained below 18,000ft with the main gear doors open. There's a drag penalty they seem to have overlooked.Comment
-
From the pictures here: http://avherald.com/h?article=50e4701a&opt=0, the landing gear doors are hanging down which means that the landing gear was extended using the alternate method (gravity), which is consistent with a hydraulic failure.Originally posted by Evan View Post
What is the report you mention?
We need to know why they didn't land at the originally intended destination.
If they had a hydraulic failure, extended the gear manually, and only then realized that the runway was going to be too short, then yes, that was an overlook. And then they didn't realize that they didn't have enough fuel to reach the alternate in that configuration? That is a second overlook in a row, because if you are not going to make it then landing at the original destination in a too-short runway is almost certainly a better option, first because the landing distances have big margins over actual performance, so most of the times you will be able to stop on a "too short" runway, and second because overrunning the runway and going at 60 knots onto the RESA will almost always be better than landing in a random field.
It is a standard practice in case of gear malfunction to check runway lengths and available alternates BEFORE running the alternate extension procedure. You might end deciding to go to the alternate for a number of reasons (not just runway too short, but also availability and capability of emergency services, availability or a repair center, meteoritical conditions, etc) and in that case you should not do the irreversible alternate extension until approaching the alternate airfield.
And yes, maintenance issues due to lack of legitimate spare parts may very well be part of the probable cause. I wonder if that is an item where the west should not impose sanctions on Russia to avoid compromising the civil aviation safety. Although, on the other hand, the the air transportation capabilities can be used for military reasons too (like transporting troops, weapons, food supplies and equipment)
--- 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
-
Also, I wonder if the pilot performed the landing while they still had some fuel (as they should) or if they waited until the engines run out of fuel and then performed a forced landing.
--- 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
-
I was referring to the same Avherald report. But, as usual, the information coming from Russian authorities is fanciful. The reports indicate that the crew reported the loss of the green system. If true, then the PTU cross-feed wasn't useful, meaning the green circuit wasn't pressurizable. So, most likely a major leak, most likely a bad hose in the gear assembly, most likely due to a lack of quality spares and/or slack maintenance. It might have failed during the gear extension, which would explain why they had the gear down before diverting. But, if this were true, there is no way they retracted the gear in the go-around (as reported). My guess is that they had minimal reserves, roughly calculated a fuel burn with gear extended at 18,000 but neglected to factor in the open doors and headwinds, and just cut it way too close.Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
Certainly, it would have been wiser to land on the original field without flaps (they should still have had alt braking from the yellow system) and risk an overrun. But where do they send pilots in Russia who break precious Western airplanes? That fate would promote a risk-taking diversion. These guys are probably already digging potatoes in the permafrost (or trenches in Bakhmut).
And I agree, sanctions shouldn't be placed on spares for western commercial airliners. The Russians have plenty of home-grown military transports, so I think the chance of these parts aiding their terrorism agenda is minimal. Commercial aviation safety should remain immune from international conflicts.Comment
-
-
I just saw today's updated information on Avherald. It only adds to the confusion.
A failure or severe loss of pressure in the green system would disable gear operation due to the priority valve. But even with a total failure, flaps and slats would still be available from the blue and yellow systems, as well as ground spoilers 2,3,4 and alternate braking. But, if the event occurred on final, they would already be configured anyway and on a normal approach speed. So why the go-around and diversion?on final approach about 1 minute prior to estimated touch down the crew initiated a go around in Omsk due to the failure of the green hydraulic system
I guess one possible scenario is a crew that didn't understand the hydraulics distribution on the A320 erroneously assuming this would affect landing distance. If the green system pressure was still above the priority valve threshold, the gear would have been retractable in the go-around but then why not the doors as well?
More likely, the information coming out of Russia is unreliable.Comment
-
Well, flaps and slats seem to be fully extended, which opens a new set of questions I suppose. Were they extended since the 1st approach?Originally posted by Evan View Post
Actually not, and it should be in plain sight in the picture taken from below/behind, unless it was torn in the landing.Can you see the RAT deployed in any pictures?
But most likely the pilots decided to find a good filed and land short of running out of fuel.
--- 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
-
Interesting updates in http://avherald.com/h?article=50e4701a&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
-
I doubt that. There was nothing reported that would prevent flaps operation. The report also says they were flying at 260kts, which is above all the flap placard speeds, and 20kts below VLE. So I'd guess they were flaps up and gear down.Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
There could also have been some malfunction in the fuel tank sensors that suddenly corrected itself. I mean, without proper maintenance, what can't be ruled out. I'd like to see the MEL status on this one.
Comment
-
Comment