Siberia Airlines crash in Irkutsk

[TwoBitBandit]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060709/ap_on_re_eu/russia_plane_crash;_ylt=AgArTu0bkvnULGGKAjZFu8us0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--

MOSCOW - A Russian passenger plane skidded off a rain-slicked Siberian runway early Sunday and plowed through a concrete barrier, bursting into flames. At least 118 people were killed and about 14 still unaccounted for, officials said.
 
The S7 Airbus A-310 was carrying 200 people — a crew of eight and 192 passengers — on a flight from Moscow to Irkutsk. Many were children headed to nearby Lake Baikal on vacation, according to Russian news reports.

The thing that got my attention about this is that I was on that exact flight (Siberia Airlines Flight 778) from Moscow to Irkutsk on November 30, 2005.  Maybe I was on the exact plane that crashed.

So, I guess I narrowly cheated death one more time in my life... 

[PeeWee]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060709/ap_on_re_eu/russia_plane_crash;_ylt=AgArTu0bkvnULGGKAjZFu8us0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--

The thing that got my attention about this is that I was on that exact flight (Siberia Airlines Flight 778) from Moscow to Irkutsk on November 30, 2005.  Maybe I was on the exact plane that crashed.

So, I guess I narrowly cheated death one more time in my life... 

Sibir Air is Russia's third largest airline, following Aeroflot and Atlant-Soyuz, formerly Pulkolvo and Rossia. You had a one and six chance of flying on this plane as Sibir has 6 A310 included in their fleet.

Here is a photo.

Peewee

[Bruno]

Sibir Air is Russia's third largest airline, following Aeroflot and Atlant-Soyuz, formerly Pulkolvo and Rossia. You had a one and six chance of flying on this plane as Sibir has 6 A310 included in their fleet.

Not sure that plane if the real reason... specialy if you read the link given by TBB, at the end of article, you can read :

In March 1994, a half-empty Airbus A-310 belonging to Russian state airline Aeroflot crashed near the Siberian city of Novokuznetsk, killing 70 people. Investigators said the crash was caused mainly by the pilot's teenage son inadvertently disconnecting the autopilot.

Do you think that it is the right place for a teenager that gaming with command in the cokpit of a commercial flight ? Boeing and Airbus are very secure plane when maintenance and rule are respected !

[Adel]

Airbus to stop production of A-310 airliners from July 2007

more about the crash here

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/doc/HotNews.html#74539

[Bruno]

Airbus to stop production of A-310 airliners from July 2007

more about the crash here

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/doc/HotNews.html#74539

The article say :

PARIS, July 9 (RIA Novosti) - European aircraft-maker Airbus will stop the production of A-310 airliners, one of which crashed in Siberia Sunday with the loss of more than 100 people, from July 2007, the Airbus press office said.
The A-310-300 is a two-engine large-fuselage airliner seating 220 passengers. The first aircraft of this type were put into operation in December 1985, the Airbus press office said.

This article make think that airbus have choose to stop the A-310 AFTER the crash... BUT a other article from 8 March 2006 say :

PARIS — Airbus announced the retirement of its first-ever airliner today.

The France-based aircraft maker, a unit of European Aeronautic Defence and Space Co., said the last model from its wide-bodied A300/A310 family will roll off the production line in July 2007.

The A300, launched in May 1969, was the first Airbus jet and the world's first twin-engine wide-bodied airliner when it entered service with Air France five years later. The A310, launched in 1978, was the first to use TV-style displays in the cockpit.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2002850088_webairbus07.html

Seem that these decision was taken long time ago, but the date of first lauch are good in the Russian newspaper... So, what to believe ? Russian newspaper or American newspaper ? 

If i check the site of airbus ( http://www.airbus.com/crisis/index.html ), it seem that date of production are good on the russian newspaper and that date from announcement is good on US newspaper... Who to believe when journalist are not able to give the right information 

Simple post for show that it can be very difficult to know the real true on something 

[PeeWee]

The article say :
This article make think that airbus have choose to stop the A-310 AFTER the crash... BUT a other article from 8 March 2006 say :http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2002850088_webairbus07.html

Seem that these decision was taken long time ago, but the date of first lauch are good in the Russian newspaper... So, what to believe ? Russian newspaper or American newspaper ? 

If i check the site of airbus ( http://www.airbus.com/crisis/index.html ), it seem that date of production are good on the russian newspaper and that date from announcement is good on US newspaper... Who to believe when journalist are not able to give the right information 

Simple post for show that it can be very difficult to know the real true on something 

I just quickly scanned the articles, Bruno. One mentions the A310 the other the A300. They are two different aircraft. It is thought that the A310 is being forced out of the market with the advent of the Boeing 787. It would be hard for the A310 to compete with the 787 because the 787 is so technologically superior to the A310.

Peewee

[Adel]

some pictures here:

http://english.pravda.ru/photo/report/Irkutsk_aircrash-609/0/

[Bruno]

I just quickly scanned the articles, Bruno. One mentions the A310 the other the A300. They are two different aircraft. It is thought that the A310 is being forced out of the market with the advent of the Boeing 787. It would be hard for the A310 to compete with the 787 because the 787 is so technologically superior to the A310.

Scanned too quickly 

Both article speak about A300 & A310... The difference between these two aircraft is not huge...

For compete with the 787, you have the A350 : http://www.airbus.com/en/aircraftfamilies/a350/index.html

[Adel]

2nd Airbus forced to land, identification of Siberia dead starts

RIA NOVOSTI. July 10, 2006, 9:36 AM

NOVOSIBIRSK, July 10 (RIA Novosti) - Another Airbus belonging to the airline that lost a plane in a horrific crash Sunday has been forced to make an emergency landing, the company press service said Monday.
With identification of the 122 fatalities about to start after a crash in the Siberian city of Irkutsk, S7, formerly Sibir, said another A-310 had made a forced landing in southern Russia after the crew detected a low level of engine oil during a charter flight from Turkey to Moscow.
The Airbus, which was carrying 243 passengers and eight crew, landed without any problems at the airport in the Black Sea resort of Simferopol.
"While flying charter flight 1822 from Antalia to Moscow and after a technical service in Antalia, the crew noticed the oil level dropping in one engine," a company spokesperson said. "For safety reasons, the pilot made the decision to land at Simferopol airport."
In Siberia, forensic experts and relatives will start the grim process of identifying the bodies recovered from the wreckage of the A-310-300 after it crashed Sunday killing at least 122.
The plane was making a routine flight from Moscow to the city of Irkutsk, about 3,000 miles east of the capital and the home airport for popular tourist destination Lake Baikal. The airliner, which the company said early Monday had 195 passengers and eight crew on board, veered off the runway on landing and burst into flames after hitting a concrete wall.
The company also said 70 people had been injured. President Vladimir Putin has declared July 10 a day of mourning for the A-310 victims.

[PeeWee]

Scanned too quickly 

Both article speak about A300 & A310... The difference between these two aircraft is not huge...

For compete with the 787, you have the A350 : http://www.airbus.com/en/aircraftfamilies/a350/index.html

 

With regard to the articles one may have mentioned the A310 and the other the A300/310 family. The difference between an A300 and an A310 many not be huge but there is a difference, hence the difference in model numbers. The a 300 is 43 feet longer than the a 310. The wing span is 3 feet wider. The 300 carries more passengers but it has a shorter range. Perhaps the differences between the A300 and the A310 could be likened to the difference between a Boeing 732 and a Boeing 734. The same family but there are differences in length, age of aircraft, and payloads.

It could be that the Boeing 787 has forced all three of the Airbus models out of business because I too had heard that the A350 sales were not doing well against those of the 787-3 or 787-8. We have a duopoly anyway in the commercial airplane market. Boeing is regaining its dominance in the arena with the advent of the 787 and it's happening rather quickly.

The 787 is 9 feet longer than is the A300 and 50 feet longer than the A310. It has a 50 foot advantage in wingspan over the A300. The 787 can carry from 224 to 330 passengers, depending on the model. The range is between 8,500 nautical miles up to 8,500 nautical miles. Other than the super technological advantages the 787 has over the older A300 and A310 models the range simply blows away the comptetion.

Peewee

[jb]

Both Airbus and Boeing build some very fine and very advanced aircraft. 

Just because a manufacturer has come up with a newer more sophisticated model does not mean that all the users of previously made aircraft are going to rush out and replace their inventory of older planes with the new model.  I.e, there are still many 727 and 737s still being operated by many airlines all around the world.  They were, and are, good, solid, dependable, relaible workhorses of the airline industry.

I have my own theories about why these planes are crashing and it has nothing to do with specific aircraft makers or their models.

[docetae]

This airbus was belonging to Panam before being operated by Delta , sent back to Airbus, sold to Aeroflot and after to Sbir :
http://www.airfleets.net/ficheapp/?app=a310&msn=442&imm=N812PA

[Bruno]

The 787 is 9 feet longer than is the A300 and 50 feet longer than the A310. It has a 50 foot advantage in wingspan over the A300. The 787 can carry from 224 to 330 passengers, depending on the model. The range is between 8,500 nautical miles up to 8,500 nautical miles. Other than the super technological advantages the 787 has over the older A300 and A310 models the range simply blows away the comptetion.

Peewee, you need to compare equivalent model and recent one...

Compare the A-350 with the 787... both have around the same characteristic and both are wonderfull plane...

A picture fro the A-350 :


About the incident, i am like JB... i think that the cause will be like usual a human factor... no making the regular inspection for spare money, replace piece by cheaper one who are not so good controlled, etc... in all case, airplane is the more secure system of transport...

[docetae]

 

With regard to the articles one may have mentioned the A310 and the other the A300/310 family. The difference between an A300 and an A310 many not be huge but there is a difference, hence the difference in model numbers. The a 300 is 43 feet longer than the a 310. The wing span is 3 feet wider. The 300 carries more passengers but it has a shorter range. Perhaps the differences between the A300 and the A310 could be likened to the difference between a Boeing 732 and a Boeing 734. The same family but there are differences in length, age of aircraft, and payloads.

It could be that the Boeing 787 has forced all three of the Airbus models out of business because I too had heard that the A350 sales were not doing well against those of the 787-3 or 787-8. We have a duopoly anyway in the commercial airplane market. Boeing is regaining its dominance in the arena with the advent of the 787 and it's happening rather quickly.

The 787 is 9 feet longer than is the A300 and 50 feet longer than the A310. It has a 50 foot advantage in wingspan over the A300. The 787 can carry from 224 to 330 passengers, depending on the model. The range is between 8,500 nautical miles up to 8,500 nautical miles. Other than the super technological advantages the 787 has over the older A300 and A310 models the range simply blows away the comptetion.

Peewee

The A300 and 310 are technologies from the 70, same generation than 767 and 757. They are not using fly by wire but hydaulics commands. They have been phased out as they were replaced by the next generation of Airbus aircraft. In their time, they bring the new concept of wide body for a twin engine aircraft that has defined ETOPS rules for transatlantic flights (Extended-range Twin-engine Operation Performance Standards or Engines Turning Or Passengers Swimming ).

[PeeWee]

Both Airbus and Boeing build some very fine and very advanced aircraft. 

Just because a manufacturer has come up with a newer more sophisticated model does not mean that all the users of previously made aircraft are going to rush out and replace their inventory of older planes with the new model.  I.e, there are still many 727 and 737s still being operated by many airlines all around the world.  They were, and are, good, solid, dependable, relaible workhorses of the airline industry.

I have my own theories about why these planes are crashing and it has nothing to do with specific aircraft makers or their models.

True but this is what is happening with the Airbus A300/310 series and the A350. We get a lot of press on this where I live because Boeing is our city. No one rushes out to replace inventory but they do stop ordering the model hence production stops as has happened with the A310 and 300 and is now predicted for the A350. Boeing's refreshed dominace in the market has sent Airbus reeling to some degree.

Continental Airlines recently retired their last DC-9 but still flys the much simular MD-80. True there are still some 727 flying but look who is flying them. By in large 3rd world countries. I recently looked at a 1975 vintage 727. the asking price was $300,000.00 and it flew!  A friend of mine recently purchase and ex United 727 for less than  you could by a house these days. So yes, there are older airplanes still in service but so can I still find you a very clean 1970 Chevy. A 1970 Chevy is not a new BMW. Same as an older A300-B4 is not an 787-3.

And get this, jb, KLM Royal Dutch, withing the past 18 months, sold an operational 747, but I do not recall if it was a 100, 200, 300, or 400, for the tidy sum of just $1.00!. Old airplanes are not worth much which is why you see so many of the 727s and the older Boeing 732s being used in the inventorys of small airlines who operate out of South America and for cargo lines.

Peewee

Peewee

[PeeWee]

This airbus was belonging to Panam before being operated by Delta , sent back to Airbus, sold to Aeroflot and after to Sbir :
http://www.airfleets.net/ficheapp/?app=a310&msn=442&imm=N812PA

Yes, look at how old that airplane was. 20 years old. It had a lot of cycles on it but it would not be a reason for crash. The reason stated was braking. That does not suprise me being that the aircraft was maintained by Russians. Last summer Aeroflot had to ground their entire fleet of IL-96. Including the head of state...Putin...because of substandard brake maintainence. Putin's plane was delayed for 2 hours as a result of the problem, which is unacceptable for a Head of State aircraft.

MOSCOW
 
Ilyushins may fly again
 
Russia may soon drop a ban on flights of Ilyushin passenger planes, which were grounded in August for safety reasons, a government official said Monday.
 
Russia grounded all Ilyushin-96-300 aircraft because of problems with their braking systems similar to those that disrupted a trip by President Vladimir Putin in August, raising wider concerns about the safety of passenger planes in the country. (Reuters)

The article suggest that all passenger planes, those maintained by Russians be they Western or Eastern built, are raising saftey concerns. "...raising wider concerns about the saftey of passenger planes..." No mention of manufacturer. Aeroflot operates the Ilyushin, Antonov, Boeing 767, DC-10-40, and a variety of Airbus. TransAero just purchased the first 747 to be flown by a Russian airline. TransAero is also building a strong Boeing 737 fleet. I can see both Airbus and Boeing putting a lot of financial pressure on Tupelov and Ilyushin as more and more Russian and Ukrainian carriers move toward the Western made jets.
 
 
Aeroflot had to substitute Boeing 767 aircraft on their routes that flew the Russian ILs until the problem was corrected. If I recall it took over 6 weeks to get the IL flying again. I wonder why, if they pilot had realized that his brakes had failed, did he not power up and regain air. Unless he had run out of runway. It will be interesting to learn the causes of this crash. There are usually more than one reason.

Peewee

[PeeWee]

Peewee, you need to compare equivalent model and recent one...

Compare the A-350 with the 787... both have around the same characteristic and both are wonderfull plane...

A picture fro the A-350 :


About the incident, i am like JB... i think that the cause will be like usual a human factor... no making the regular inspection for spare money, replace piece by cheaper one who are not so good controlled, etc... in all case, airplane is the more secure system of transport...

The A350 could be the primary reason but you do need an exact comparison bertween aircraft to reason why one aircraft replaces another. The 3 engine 3 pilot 727 is an example. It was like nothing else flying and yet the newer and more fuel effecient 2 engine 2 pilot Airbus 320 and the Boeing 738 (738 is short for 737-800) and simular aircraft sealed its doom. I had a conversation as recenlty as yesterday with a commercial pilot. We were talking about this. He was the one who tipped me off to the A300 and the A310 demise by the 787. I had read about the A350 in the local papers. The Boeing 787 has knocked Airbus for a financial loop it seems.

Peewee

[PeeWee]

Double posting...sorry.

[jb]

By in large 3rd world countries.

Some are being operated by 1st and 2nd world countries as well.  The last time I rode on a Ukraine Air flight, (a second world country, not that long ago) the aircraft was a well maintained, but aging Boeing 737.

No, I think the problem is one of culture and social staus, the social elites are piloting the aircraft and the social unfits are doing the maintenance work.  In many countries, at least the ones who have been experiencing these large numbers of unintentional ground contacts, (crashes), the upper class educated are trained as pilots, while the lower classes are entrusted with maintaining these aircraft.  For many of these people its the same as handing a 2,000 piece jigsaw puzzle to a 4 year old and expecting him to figure it out.   This is analogous to giving the maintenance responsibility of a super complex aircraft over to someone who is socially, educationally, and mentally only capable of little more than goatherdmanship.  It is, quite literally, a task utterly beyond their comprehension considering the instruction he's recieved for work training was most likely conducted in a language he doesn't speak well, and the technical manuals are also not in his native tongue.  But the upper class, better educated pilots cannot be expected to get their hands dirty doing mechanics work.  So you see, it's a social and cultural problem.

I saw this same dynamic at work in South America where the French sold 10 new, hot-rod, jet fighter aircraft to the Peruvian air force, all were crashed within a year, killing off 10 of Peru's finest pilots, but they all had very clean hands when they died.

[PeeWee]

Some are being operated by 1st and 2nd world countries as well.  The last time I rode on a Ukraine Air flight, (a second world country, not that long ago) the aircraft was a well maintained, but aging Boeing 737.

No, I think the problem is one of culture and social staus, the social elites are piloting the aircraft and the social unfits are doing the maintenance work.  In many countries, at least the ones who have been experiencing these large numbers of unintentional ground contacts, (crashes), the upper class educated are trained as pilots, while the lower classes are entrusted with maintaining these aircraft.  For many of these people its the same as handing a 2,000 piece jigsaw puzzle to a 4 year old and expecting him to figure it out.   This is analogous to giving the maintenance responsibility of a super complex aircraft over to someone who is socially, educationally, and mentally only capable of little more than goatherdmanship.  It is, quite literally, a task utterly beyond their comprehension considering the instruction he's recieved for work training was most likely conducted in a language he doesn't speak well, and the technical manuals are also not in his native tongue.  But the upper class, better educated pilots cannot be expected to get their hands dirty doing mechanics work.  So you see, it's a social and cultural problem.

I saw this same dynamic at work in South America where the French sold 10 new, hot-rod, jet fighter aircraft to the Peruvian air force, all were crashed within a year, killing off 10 of Peru's finest pilots, but they all had very clean hands when they died.

You may be correct, jb. Yet I do believe that Russian greed along with their enthusiastic nature to cut a corner to save a ruble...add maybe a few lax maintainence procedures and you have a mix for potential disaster. That is what happened with the IL-96. Lax maintainence and substandard brake materials. Not even the President of Russia was immune to it.

Peewee

[Adel]

what kind of shape was this plane in  ???
 
"safety belt failed" "the emergency slide had not inflated" "went to the emergency exit across the cabin, but a food cart blocked it, and a man trying to force it open appeared to break one of the levers. "

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/stories/2006/07/12/012.html

[Wild Orchid*]

Do you think that it is the right place for a teenager that gaming with command in the cokpit of a commercial flight ? Boeing and Airbus are very secure plane when maintenance and rule are respected !

On the Russian forum where they discuss the same event one woman posted that she recently flew from Irkutsk  to somewhere on the Black sea and though the pilot was drunk the flight was fine. 

[PeeWee]

what kind of shape was this plane in  ???
 
"safety belt failed" "the emergency slide had not inflated" "went to the emergency exit across the cabin, but a food cart blocked it, and a man trying to force it open appeared to break one of the levers. "

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/stories/2006/07/12/012.html

The airplane was 20 years old. Not old for an airplane if it was maintained properly. Pan Am and Delta would have had it maintained inpecably. Aeroflot would have maintained it to their standards. It would be anyones guess as to what Sibir had for maintainance. We saw what Russian maintainance did for the IL-96 including Putin's jet.

All aircraft have some issues that while they need attention to it does not keep them from flying. Logs are recorded by the pilots and then given to the maint. people. Some things are repaired and some things are defered.

I had heard that brakes were the cause. What happened once the emergency processes began is seperate from that. All commercial aircraft have auto brakes. When the pilots are going through their prelanding check they initiate the auto braking system. The auto brakes will monitor the braking in the landing gear and also activate the thrust reversers in the engines. If that system failed then perhaps the plane would not slow down. If the pilots did not initiate the auto brakes prior to landing then the plane may not stop. Who would know what was going through a pilot's mind in the split seconds that he/she had available to him/her in those frantic moments. The black box should reveal what happened.

The cart, the door, and the seat belt, of course, do not keep the plane from flying or crashing. They only keep the people from exiting. That is a seperate maint. issue. I flew an Aeroflot 767 recently from Seattle to Moscow. One of the seats was broken. That is ok as long as no one sits in it.

Peewee

[Adel]

Govt. to set Siberia air crash compensation

RIA NOVOSTI. July 12, 2006, 9:49 AM

NOVOSIBIRSK, July 12 (RIA Novosti) - A government meeting will consider the level of compensation from the federal budget to be paid to the relatives of victims Sunday's air crash in Siberia, a deputy transportation minister said Wednesday.
Boris Korol is in the Siberian city of Irkutsk, about 3,000 miles east of Moscow, where the tragedy happened.
An Airbus 310, owned by the Novosibirsk-based S7, formerly Sibir, crashed on landing at the airport, killing at least 124 and injuring 70 out of 203 people on board.
Transportation Minister Igor Levitin, who is also head of the commission investigating the accident, said earlier S7 and insurance companies had pledged to pay 50,000 rubles ($1,860) and 12,000 rubles ($450) respectively to the passengers' relatives.
Irkutsk Governor Alexander Tishanin said previously the victims relatives would be paid 100,000 rubles ($3,700) from the regional budget, while those injured in the crash would receive 50,000 rubles ($1,860) each.
The liner was making a routine flight from Moscow to Irkutsk, the home airport for popular tourist destination Lake Baikal.
The cause of the tragedy has not been identified so far. Preliminary reports suggest a fault with the brake hydraulic system might have caused the airliner to veer off the runway upon landing and burst into flames after hitting a concrete wall and plowing into private garages.

Airport:

Earlier accidents in Irkutsk occurred in January 1994, when a Tu-154 aircraft crashed on takeoff, killing 124 people . In December 1997, an A-124 military transport aircraft crashed into a residential area in Irkutsk just seconds after take-off, killing 72 people. In July 2001, a Tu-154 Russian airliner crashed near Irkutsk, claiming the lives of 145 people.

[PeeWee]

Govt. to set Siberia air crash compensation

RIA NOVOSTI. July 12, 2006, 9:49 AM

NOVOSIBIRSK, July 12 (RIA Novosti) - A government meeting will consider the level of compensation from the federal budget to be paid to the relatives of victims Sunday's air crash in Siberia, a deputy transportation minister said Wednesday.
Boris Korol is in the Siberian city of Irkutsk, about 3,000 miles east of Moscow, where the tragedy happened.
An Airbus 310, owned by the Novosibirsk-based S7, formerly Sibir, crashed on landing at the airport, killing at least 124 and injuring 70 out of 203 people on board.
Transportation Minister Igor Levitin, who is also head of the commission investigating the accident, said earlier S7 and insurance companies had pledged to pay 50,000 rubles ($1,860) and 12,000 rubles ($450) respectively to the passengers' relatives.
Irkutsk Governor Alexander Tishanin said previously the victims relatives would be paid 100,000 rubles ($3,700) from the regional budget, while those injured in the crash would receive 50,000 rubles ($1,860) each.
The liner was making a routine flight from Moscow to Irkutsk, the home airport for popular tourist destination Lake Baikal.
The cause of the tragedy has not been identified so far. Preliminary reports suggest a fault with the brake hydraulic system might have caused the airliner to veer off the runway upon landing and burst into flames after hitting a concrete wall and plowing into private garages.

Airport:

Earlier accidents in Irkutsk occurred in January 1994, when a Tu-154 aircraft crashed on takeoff, killing 124 people . In December 1997, an A-124 military transport aircraft crashed into a residential area in Irkutsk just seconds after take-off, killing 72 people. In July 2001, a Tu-154 Russian airliner crashed near Irkutsk, claiming the lives of 145 people.

Maybe to a Russian the compensation would be significant and how quick they were to offer it. The three engine jet show below is the Tupelov 154 mentioned above the other is the Antonov 124.



Peewee