Orbiter-Forum  

Go Back   Orbiter-Forum > Far Side of the Moon > Brighton Lounge
Register Blogs Orbinauts List Social Groups FAQ Projects Mark Forums Read

Brighton Lounge General off-topic discussions. Political or religious topics may only be posted in The Basement forum.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 08-15-2019, 10:48 AM   #1
Notebook
Donator
 
Notebook's Avatar


Default Russia bird strike: 23 injured after plane hits gulls and crash-lands

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-49355236

Quote:
A Russian passenger plane has made an emergency landing in a cornfield near Moscow after striking a flock of birds.
Twenty-three people were injured in the incident, which saw the plane land with its engines off and landing gear retracted, health officials said.
The Ural Airlines Airbus 321 was travelling to Simferopol in Crimea when it hit the flock of gulls shortly after take-off, disrupting its engines.
State media has dubbed the landing the "miracle over Ramensk".
Notebook is offline   Reply With Quote
Thanked by:
Old 08-15-2019, 12:35 PM   #2
N_Molson
Addon Developer
 
N_Molson's Avatar

Default

It happens. Glad to see there are skilled pilots all over the world !
N_Molson is online now   Reply With Quote
Thanked by:
Old 08-15-2019, 02:16 PM   #3
Notebook
Donator
 
Notebook's Avatar


Default

They did well. What helped the survival chances?
Landing wheels up, soft/wet soil.

I think they still had one engine operating?
Notebook is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-15-2019, 11:09 PM   #4
C3PO
Donator
 
C3PO's Avatar

Default

Another case where the wings staid attached, just like the Hudson River crash landing.

I wonder if dumping fuel is the correct thing to do before emergency landings. It looks like full wing tanks is having an effect on the structural integrity.
C3PO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-15-2019, 11:35 PM   #5
Linguofreak
Orbinaut
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by C3PO View Post
 I wonder if dumping fuel is the correct thing to do before emergency landings. It looks like full wing tanks is having an effect on the structural integrity.
*If* you have time, which generally isn't the case with a dual engine failure on takeoff, it *absolutely* is. If you don't have time, you just fly the airplane and pray the tanks don't rupture.

---------- Post added at 18:35 ---------- Previous post was at 18:32 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Notebook View Post
 
I think they still had one engine operating?
One engine failed completely and the other partially (reduced power), I believe. So not the complete deadstick that the miracle on the Hudson had to deal with, but not enough power to remain airborne either.
Linguofreak is offline   Reply With Quote
Thanked by:
Old 08-15-2019, 11:55 PM   #6
C3PO
Donator
 
C3PO's Avatar

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Linguofreak View Post
 *If* you have time, which generally isn't the case with a dual engine failure on takeoff, it *absolutely* is. If you don't have time, you just fly the airplane and pray the tanks don't rupture.

---------- Post added at 18:35 ---------- Previous post was at 18:32 ----------



One engine failed completely and the other partially (reduced power), I believe. So not the complete deadstick that the miracle on the Hudson had to deal with, but not enough power to remain airborne either.
Very few planes do emergency landings with full tanks because the check-list tells them to dump the fuel. Lately we've had a few that suffered engine failure during take-off or climb-out that found somewhere flat to ditch.

I can't remember any case where the plane staid intact if the tanks were empty and wheels retracted.
C3PO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-16-2019, 12:29 AM   #7
Linguofreak
Orbinaut
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by C3PO View Post
 Very few planes do emergency landings with full tanks because the check-list tells them to dump the fuel. Lately we've had a few that suffered engine failure during take-off or climb-out that found somewhere flat to ditch.

I can't remember any case where the plane staid intact if the tanks were empty and wheels retracted.
There are few cases, period, where an airliner-sized plane remains intact in an off-field landing. And breaking up without fire is better than remaining intact and catching fire. Heck, breaking up with fire is probably better than remaining intact with fire, because sections that come to a stop far from the burning sections won't catch fire. In any case outcomes without fire are far, far better than the same situation with fire. I read an analysis of the crash in Moscow earlier this year (intact, gear down, on field landing), that said the passengers in the rear of the aircraft had likely been rendered unconcious by asphyxia/CO poisoning before the aircraft came to a stop.
Linguofreak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-16-2019, 06:03 AM   #8
Urwumpe
Certain Super User
 
Urwumpe's Avatar

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by C3PO View Post
 Very few planes do emergency landings with full tanks because the check-list tells them to dump the fuel.

Many actually do that. Only larger planes have the capability to dump fuel. AFAIR, the A321 doesn't have such a capability.



The old FAA rule was that twin engine jets don't need to have it, before that, you had the 105% rule of the FAA: if the MTOW exceeds the maximum landing weight by 5%, you need a fuel dump system.



On the A330, such a system is optional, the airliners have to decide if they order it.
Urwumpe is offline   Reply With Quote
Thanked by:
Old 08-16-2019, 10:56 AM   #9
N_Molson
Addon Developer
 
N_Molson's Avatar

Default

The thing is that "empty" tanks are still very dangerous in the event of a fire. You can't jettison fuel to the last drop, and a few drops are enough to fill the tank of fuel vapor (again fuel in its liquid state doesn't ignite, its the vapors just above it). Now of course, if you have less mass, you have less kinetic energy released on impact. And less mass means a lower stall speed, which is always good when it comes to landing, especially in an engine failure scenario.

Last edited by N_Molson; 08-16-2019 at 11:00 AM.
N_Molson is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-16-2019, 03:23 PM   #10
Notebook
Donator
 
Notebook's Avatar


Default

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-49369172

Quote:
Russia bird strike: How cool heads glided jet down to safety
10 minutes ago
Notebook is offline   Reply With Quote
Thanked by:
Old 08-17-2019, 08:45 AM   #11
Linguofreak
Orbinaut
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Notebook View Post
 
I think they still had one engine operating?
Ran across a video on YouTube: You can hear engine noise in the lead up to ground contact, but it's very much not normal.
Linguofreak is offline   Reply With Quote
Thanked by:
Old 08-17-2019, 10:54 AM   #12
Artlav
Aperiodic traveller
 
Artlav's Avatar

Default

Yes, one engine failed on impact, the other kept running but didn't develop any thrust.

---------- Post added at 13:54 ---------- Previous post was at 13:32 ----------

Here are some of the videos:












Last edited by Artlav; 08-17-2019 at 10:57 AM.
Artlav is offline   Reply With Quote
Thanked by:
Reply

  Orbiter-Forum > Far Side of the Moon > Brighton Lounge


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 09:53 PM.

Quick Links Need Help?


About Us | Rules & Guidelines | TOS Policy | Privacy Policy

Orbiter-Forum is hosted at Orbithangar.com
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2017, Orbiter-Forum.com. All rights reserved.