Air Catastrophe Prevented in Moscow

Nat · Post by **Nat** » 20 Sep 2007, 10:42

The traffic controll officers noticed that fuel was flowing out of the plane only when the aircraft has almost taken off! 345 people passengers were aboard. http://www.russia-ic.com/news/show/4785/

fcw · Post by **fcw** » 20 Sep 2007, 11:15

Journo's at their best again!!!
A plane will not crash because of a fuel leak! Plane takes off, crew notices fuel leak, engine flame out in worst case scenario, uneventfull return, end of story.
The ATCO could have caused a problem though by ordering high speed abort: hot brakes, fuel leaks on brakes....

Nat · Post by **Nat** » 20 Sep 2007, 11:40

A plane can crash because of a fuel leak in some circumstances, especially if fuel leaks out of the fuselage tanks.
Taking into account that the incident took place not with some modern Boeing or Airbus but an old Soviet IL-86 which is now poorley used even in Russia, the plane and passengers definitely were under risk.

In 2000 Concorde plane flamed out and crashed in France near Paris due to a fuel leak. According to you it was impossible.

TWR · Post by **TWR** » 20 Sep 2007, 12:54

You can't just reduce the cause of a plane crash to a single event.

No, Concorde did not crash because of a fuel leak. That attributed for about 70% to a deadly crash. You need to mention the chain of events which start at a piece of metal on the rwy-in-use, a double engine flameout on a supersonic cruiser, the wing burning away due to fuel fire hence losing lift, etc...

Maybe the fuel leak on the Ilyushin would have led to a dramatic event, but we don't know that. Journalists certainly don't know it and they should
learn to report FACTS instead of fairy tales. Nowadays all they try to do is scare people for the fun of it...

FLY4HOURS.BE · Post by **FLY4HOURS.BE** » 20 Sep 2007, 13:05

ATC can warn but not order to stop.
+ If aircraft is over V1, no matter what, pilots won't stop.

How can an airplane start losing fuel to an extent that a tower controller could see it?
It should have been alot of fuel...

Good job of ATC to warn ASAP.

Nat · Post by **Nat** » 20 Sep 2007, 13:41

"How can an airplane start losing fuel to an extent that a tower controller could see it?
It should have been alot of fuel... "

Yes, like it`s written in the article "the fuel was flowing out of the plane", so it was a lot of fuel indeed if a controller could spot it.

Nat · Post by **Nat** » 20 Sep 2007, 13:45

TWR wrote:You can't just reduce the cause of a plane crash to a single event.

No, Concorde did not crash because of a fuel leak. That attributed for about 70% to a deadly crash. You need to mention the chain of events which start at a piece of metal on the rwy-in-use, a double engine flameout on a supersonic cruiser, the wing burning away due to fuel fire hence losing lift, etc...

Maybe the fuel leak on the Ilyushin would have led to a dramatic event, but we don't know that. Journalists certainly don't know it and they should
learn to report FACTS instead of fairy tales. Nowadays all they try to do is scare people for the fun of it...

About 70% is a considerable number, isn`t it? Anyway, saying that a fuel leak cannot lead to a crash is also wrong. It can be dangerous.
And besides, where do you see a "fairy tale" in this article? Show it to me please.

FLY4HOURS.BE · Post by **FLY4HOURS.BE** » 20 Sep 2007, 13:47

Come on Nat, a gorgeous woman like you should not become arrogant in any circumstances.

The crew obviously didn't do their external.
Otherwise they would have noticed that something was wrong...

Nat · Post by **Nat** » 20 Sep 2007, 13:50

Thanks, but i actually cannot see anything arrogant in my posts.

In my opinion this incident only shows how "carefully" they check planes in Russia before flights.

tsv · Post by **tsv** » 20 Sep 2007, 14:34

Nat wrote:.
Taking into account that the incident took place not with some modern Boeing or Airbus but an old Soviet IL-86 which is now poorley used even in Russia, the plane and passengers definitely were under risk.

Your "old Soviet IL-86" happens to have one of the best safety records in the history of aviation. Only one has ever crashed. No Boeing or Airbus aircraft of that era has a better safety record. Any airline who goes to the trouble of maintaining them properly shouldn't have any safety problems with them for quite a few years yet.

With regard to this incident I suggest the maintenance people at Atlant Soyuz have got some serious explaining to do.

Nat · Post by **Nat** » 20 Sep 2007, 14:59

Your "old Soviet IL-86" happens to have one of the best safety records in the history of aviation. Only one has ever crashed. No Boeing or Airbus aircraft of that era has a better safety record. Any airline who goes to the trouble of maintaining them properly shouldn't have any safety problems with them for quite a few years yet.

I was not saying that IL-86 is unsafe as an aircraft model - and indeed it is one of the safest planes in history of aviation. However, even safest planes have a certain exploitation lifetime - and in these terms IL-86 are old planes which increases their chances for unexpected breakdowns.

TWR · Post by **TWR** » 20 Sep 2007, 15:23

The air traffic controllers of Vnukovo Airport in Moscow have prevented a crash of a passenger liner IL-86 belonging to the air company Atlant-Soyuz and flying from Moscow to Egypt.

There you have your fairy tale. I don't see any hard facts in that.

Remember the Air Transat A330 over the Atlantic who made an emergency
landing in the Açores because he lost all engines due to fuel starvation.
It proves that the outcome of a fuel leak can be lethal...or not.

NimbusFlyer · Post by **NimbusFlyer** » 20 Sep 2007, 15:30

FLY4HOURS.BE wrote:The crew obviously didn't do their external.
Otherwise they would have noticed that something was wrong...

Says who? Where you there? This is your personnel assumption. It is perfectly possible to do the external without having a fuel leak and actually have fuel leak once the engines are started and this for various reasons. Don’t blame the crew if you are not 100% sure.

Brgds

Nat · Post by **Nat** » 20 Sep 2007, 15:31

I do not think it`s tale - it is what i translated from a Russian informational source, and the majority of them write that air traffic controllers of Vnukovo Airport in Moscow have prevented a crash of a passenger liner.
If you are sure that a fuel flow (not even leak) cannot cause a crash, then definitely it`s a tale to you. For me it`s not.

TWR · Post by **TWR** » 20 Sep 2007, 15:52

You seem to miss my point. Fuel leaks, together with other circumstances, CAN lead to a crash (Concorde) or they don't (Air Transat). There is no rule that says that every acft with a fuel leak will crash. But this is what the article wants you to believe. Air crashes are just too complicated to reduce them to black/white situations. It doesn't matter what I believe or not; crashes happen because a chain of events take place and these events all have a logical explanation. There are just not enough facts in the article that you, I or anybody can conclude this aircraft was destined to crash.

I've had my own share of air incidents in my professional life. I witnessed them from the front row, but I would never make such statements because
they are pure speculation. And if you witness events but later you read about them in the press, then you very quickly learn that you shouldn't believe everything you read. And certainly not when it concerns aviation.

But you are an intelligent girl, I don't have to explain this to you...

smokejumper · Post by **smokejumper** » 20 Sep 2007, 16:20

Aircraft runnning out of fuel (for various reasons) have occurred in several instances before:

- In 1983, Air Canada flight 143 (Boeing 767) ran out of fuel at 41,000 feet and made a powerless landing on an old airfield in Winnepeg during an auto race - the spectators scattered and the plane successfully landed.

- In 2001, Air Transat flight 236 (A-330-200) ran out of fuel and glided to a successful landing in the Azores.

- Best of all, a U-2 transiting the Atlantic in the 1960's called the Bermuda tower and reported that he had flamed-out due to fuel problems. The tower asked how far he was from the airport and he replied "About 250 miles (402 Km)". The tower said they'd call for a rescue and the U-2 pilot replied for them to not bother, he'd just glide in. An hour later, he made a dead sitck landing on the runway and was towed to a hanger.

The common point for each of these issues was that the plane was at altitude and could approach straight-in without low altitude maneuvering.

Running out of fuel is not advised for any pilot, but it does not have to be a major emergency. Maneuvering at low altitude is very critical with no power, but if you can make a straight-in approach, it can work out (assuming good piloting skills).

Nat · Post by **Nat** » 20 Sep 2007, 18:58

Sorry, smokejumper, but actually it was not about running out of fuel but about a threat of potential flaming of the aircraft that could take place because of the fuel leak.

Homo Aeroportus · Post by **Homo Aeroportus** » 20 Sep 2007, 20:12

FLY4HOURS.BE wrote:ATC can warn but not order to stop.
+ If aircraft is over V1, no matter what, pilots won't stop.

Right, this is how it should be.

Remember Ueberlingen?

The Russian pilot rejected the "Climb" TCAS RA and followed instead the ATCO order to descent.

It was said after the accident that the ICAO rules should be enforced, against the Russian procedure where the pilot follows ATC instructions.

Anyone to confirm what is the status today in Russia?

Thks.

Nat · Post by **Nat** » 20 Sep 2007, 20:51

I've had my own share of air incidents in my professional life. I witnessed them from the front row, but I would never make such statements because
they are pure speculation. And if you witness events but later you read about them in the press, then you very quickly learn that you shouldn't believe everything you read. And certainly not when it concerns aviation.

Of course, i`m not an aviation professional (it`s only my hobby), and i mainly translate the news items but do not write them personally, and if i have not witnessed some event that has happened i only have the information presented in press at my disposal.

Even if here they write about this incident as about prevention of a potential crash, it is not so important to me that maybe there was no threat of a real crash at all. In any cases that may concern human lives i think it`s better to overestimate the danger than to underestimate it and then to face tragic consequences.

Like you, i also do not always believe in everything written by press, but in this exact case i see no problem in overestimating the danger of this fuel leak untill there was even the smallest possibility that someone could be injured.
Again, it`s only my opinion.

TWR · Post by **TWR** » 20 Sep 2007, 21:27

I agree with you totally.

And I'm convinced that everybody at Vnukovo did a great job. Indeed we always have to assume the worst case scenario.

I just wish the press would at least try to remain objective. Just write that an aircraft suffered from a fuel leak, had to return to the airport and the situation resulted in no injuries or further damage. Full stop.

I don't care about the journalist's personal interpretation. I'll make my own opinion. And since you are an aviation enthousiast, I'm convinced you can estimate the true value of the facts as they happened. You referred to the Concorde-case which has certain similarities so you have a pretty good idea what could have happened. Don't be influenced by the media. The stuff they write sometimes is beyond belief. You are smart, do your own thinking.

And thank you for the news, because I couldn't find it anywhere else...