Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 75

Thread: Plane with 71 on board goes missing after taking off from Moscow

  1. #1
    Member ErezS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Ra'anana, Israel
    Posts
    437

    Default Plane with 71 on board goes missing after taking off from Moscow

    An Antonov An-148 operated by Saratov Airlines and carrying 65 passengers and six crew went missing shortly after take-off from Moscow’s Domodedovo airport, an emergency services source told Russian media.
    “The airplane reportedly crashed outside Argunovo village [in the Moscow region],” the source told Interfax news agency. “The crew and passengers had no chance.”

    The Russian Emergencies Ministry says it is verifying reports that the An-148 has crashed outside Moscow.

    The aircraft departed from Moscow’s Domodedovo airport and was heading for Orsk, a city lying close to the Russia-Kazakhstan border.

    https://www.rt.com/news/418466-passe...issing-russia/


    Apparently this is the plane that crashed:
    RA-61704

    EDIT:
    Indeed this is the crashed plane, here is a link to the flight radar:
    https://www.flightradar24.com/data/a...61704#106596d0

  2. #2
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    5

    Default Tragic

    Just saw this news. RIP.

    Quote Originally Posted by ErezS View Post
    An Antonov An-148 operated by Saratov Airlines and carrying 65 passengers and six crew went missing shortly after take-off from Moscow’s Domodedovo airport, an emergency services source told Russian media.
    “The airplane reportedly crashed outside Argunovo village [in the Moscow region],” the source told Interfax news agency. “The crew and passengers had no chance.”

    The Russian Emergencies Ministry says it is verifying reports that the An-148 has crashed outside Moscow.

    The aircraft departed from Moscow’s Domodedovo airport and was heading for Orsk, a city lying close to the Russia-Kazakhstan border.

    https://www.rt.com/news/418466-passe...issing-russia/


    Apparently this is the plane that crashed:
    RA-61704

    EDIT:
    Indeed this is the crashed plane, here is a link to the flight radar:
    https://www.flightradar24.com/data/a...61704#106596d0

  3. #3
    Senior Member 3WE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    4,304

    Default

    In flight break up around 6000 ft seems to be a part of the slightly factual rumor mill...

    Along with engine fires and heroic efforts to guide the plane away from people on the ground, of course.
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

  4. #4
    Senior Member B757300's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    CLL
    Posts
    1,343

    Default

    The crash was caught on a surveillance camera. Not very good footage due to the distance, but it still shows the impact and explosion.

    http://www.foxnews.com/world/2018/02...illing-71.html

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_et13zUcZ60

    Half way through the video is a zoomed in version of the crash.

  5. #5
    Senior Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    5,595

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by NY Times
    FlightRadar24, an online site that tracks real-time flight information, shows the plane losing altitude just six minutes after takeoff. It reached 6,400 feet before dropping to 5,800 feet, rising again briefly and falling sharply...
    It's beginning to look a lot like....

  6. #6
    Senior Member Gabriel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Buenos Aires - Argentina
    Posts
    6,067

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    It's beginning to look a lot like....
    Loss of control in IMC?
    Stall?
    Unreliable airspeed?
    AF-447?
    Colgan 3407?
    All of the above?

    --- 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 ---

  7. #7
    Senior Member 3WE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    4,304

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gabriel View Post
    Loss of control in IMC? Should not happen with working AI
    Stall? Generally requires slightly insidious speed loss or fear-induced relentless pull ups.
    Unreliable airspeed? Use AI and familiar, robust pitch and power (and heed stall warnings)
    AF-447? Independent joy sticks and a FBW system that destroys basic airmanship AND THEN GOES BEZERK OVER PITOT ICING are generally required.
    Colgan 3407? A mechanism to slow way down insidiously at a very low altitude during descent/approach is needed.
    All of the above? Doesn't fit all that great.
    '

    No strong statement here, you are aware of other possibilities, maybe a bit too speculative over some radar-indicated altitude changes..

    Better wait for the final report.
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gabriel View Post
    Loss of control in IMC?
    Stall?
    Unreliable airspeed?
    AF-447?
    Colgan 3407?
    All of the above?
    Or Icing ?

  9. #9
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    97

    Default

    Not sure if this is of any value to anyone, but here's an image with the same flight track the day before (bluish green line), with the 'crash' flight track (hot pink) superimposed. They are identic (except for a touch of scaling error on my part I've not fixed exactly right).Click image for larger version. 

Name:	sssd.jpg 
Views:	95 
Size:	181.3 KB 
ID:	13757

  10. #10
    Senior Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    5,595

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gabriel View Post
    Loss of control in IMC?
    Stall?
    Unreliable airspeed?
    AF-447?
    Colgan 3407?
    All of the above?
    Sudden loss of autopilot (or failure to engage it + assumption that it is engaged whilst aircraft is actually in an undetected descent) followed by up-pulling behavior leading to theoretic Gabriellian condition known as Vst = Vs * √n (or something)?

  11. #11
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    66

    Default

    Or Germanwings 9525

  12. #12
    Member orangehuggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    379

    Default

    About 1:25 into this video... they recovered that time
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AUGiYpI4_Gc

    http://avherald.com/h?article=42cd41b5&opt=0
    moving quickly in air

  13. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    128

    Default

    https://www.rt.com/news/418664-russi...e-crash-cause/
    Investigators suspect that pitot icing may have been a factor. Looking at the CCTV video, looks like IMC.

    Pitot icing in IMC, makes me sad.

  14. #14
    Senior Member 3WE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    4,304

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Quench View Post
    ***Pitot icing in IMC***
    Use familiar robust attitude and power settings.

    (or do as Evan would like and consult FCOMQRHPOH to look up one specific robust power and attitude setting)...maybe use a setting you are familiar with while the PNF looks up the scientifically engineered figures...but only for as short of time as possible.
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

  15. #15
    Senior Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    5,595

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 3WE View Post
    Use familiar robust attitude and power settings after the confusion of the sudden loss of autoflght that, because you aren't practiced on memory items, led you to pull up into a stall for reasons you cannot explain, and die.

    (or do as Evan would like and consult your memorized training to look up one specific robust power and attitude setting once the situation is stabilized by memory items)...maybe use a setting you are familiar with from your memory items training while the PNF looks up the scientifically engineered figures...but only for as short of time as possible.
    Concur.

  16. #16
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    66

    Default

    WOW. amazing to see that the FDR data has been 'processed' so quickly

  17. #17
    Senior Member Gabriel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Buenos Aires - Argentina
    Posts
    6,067

    Default

    We need more sticky notes pasted to the airspeed indicator of pilots learning to fly in IMC.

    http://avherald.com/h?article=4b4cb236&opt=0
    In the afternoon of Feb 13th 2018 the MAK reported, that decoding of the FDR data has been completed. Preliminary analysis shows, that the pitot heatings for all three pitot probes were off while the pitot heatings had been turned on prior to departure on the previous 15 flights. About 2:30 minutes after becoming airborne a special situation developed at about 1300 meters of height and a speed of 465-470 kph (250 KIAS) when a disagreement between the speed readings #1 and #3 developed with the speed reading #2 not registering, #1 was showing about 30kph (15 knots) more than #3, an according message was issued. No significant altitude deviations between the pitot systems were noticed. At about 2000 meters height speed reading #1 began to reduce while #3 increased, another speed disagree message was issued. The crew disconnected the autopilot and continued in manual control. Speed readings from #3 reached 540-560 kph (290-300 KIAS), #1 speed readings continued to decrease. 50 seconds after the autopilot was disconnected the aircraft experienced vertical loads between 0.5 and 1.5G, the #1 speed reading reached 0, the #3 began to decrease reaching 200 kph (108 KIAS), the aircraft pitched down to about 30-35 degrees below horizont, the vertical load was 0G. Before collision with the ground #3 speed readings began to rapidly increase reaching 800 kph (432 KIAS) just before impact, #1 speed readings remained at 0. The pitch angle remained at 30 degrees below horizont until impact, 5 seconds prior to impact a right bank of 25 degrees developed. The MAK wrote: "A preliminary analysis of the recorded information, as well as an analysis of similar cases that occurred in the past, suggest that the development of a special situation in the flight could be caused by incorrect data on the flight speed on the pilots indicators, which in turn was apparently due to icing of the pitot probes when the heating systems are off."
    Strange no mention of any GPWS warning. While this comes from the FDR, not CVR, I believe that the GPWS status is being recorded in modern FDRs.

    --- 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 ---

  18. #18
    Senior Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    5,595

    Default

    the #3 began to decrease reaching 200 kph (108 KIAS), the aircraft pitched down to about 30-35 degrees below horizon
    St_ll

    I'd like to buy a vowel...

    If this is accurate, the #2 and #3 pitots must have been unaffected. Two must be in agreement or the autopilot would have self-disengaged. That 108kts speed is probably reliable,

    But why is the pitot-heat not automatic? For instance, on the A320, you have a choice between AUTO and ON. Both are on in the air. There is no OFF in the air (unless a CB is pulled or the air/ground sensing system fails...)

  19. #19
    Senior Member 3WE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    4,304

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 3WE
    Familiar
    Familiar...like something they do multiple times during each flight...select power and attitudes to attain climbs, descents and level offs...multiple times each flight. Did I say every day, multiple times per flight...familiar???

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan
    ...memory items...memorized training...memory items...memory items....
    Please, encourage guys to memorize your numerous "items" (that's plural, you know)...I know, "familiar" just isn't sexy enough.

    However, I'd ask if memorizing that pitot heat should generally be turned on when flying in cold clouds, might be emphasized a bit more than memorizing the exact power setting and attitude one should use for UAS.
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

  20. #20
    Senior Member Gabriel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Buenos Aires - Argentina
    Posts
    6,067

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    Two must be in agreement or the autopilot would have self-disengaged. That 108kts speed is probably reliable,
    I am not so sure... Probably the 800 kph (432 KIAS) of #1 just before the impact was accurate. There is no way for an airplane to accelerate from 100 kts to 430 kts in a few seconds, not even in free fall. There was an accident in Argentina in 1997 (the last pax jet fatal accident in Argentina) where the pilots thought they were too slow and about to stall. The maxed the thrust and started a descent but the IAS was still going down. They extended the slats and of course the oversped and overstressed them, because you know, Newton's opinion is that an airplane descending with max thrust and nose-down pitch is not going slow regardless of what the IAS indicates. Ok, the thing is that they totally lost control and started to fall almost vertically, the IAS still recorded low, until at some point it suddenly increased to almost Match 1. Of course that was not the plane accelerating faster than the gravity, but the ice in the pitot melting. I am thinking that something similar may have happened here (I am talking of the airspeed indication, not the slats). The magnitude of the impact seen in the video and the size of the debris seem to confirm a very very high energy impact, more like 400 kts than 100 kts.

    --- 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 ---

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •