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

[Notebook]

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

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".

 

[N_Molson]

It happens. Glad to see there are skilled pilots all over the world ! :thumbup:

 

[Notebook]

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

I think they still had one engine operating?

 

[C3PO]

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.

 

[Linguofreak]

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 ----------

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.

 

[C3PO]

*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.

 

[Linguofreak]

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.

 

[Urwumpe]

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.

 

[N_Molson]

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.

 

[Notebook]

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

Russia bird strike: How cool heads glided jet down to safety
10 minutes ago

 

[Linguofreak]

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.

 

[Artlav]

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:

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bB-1HyE_x28"]Accident: Ural A321 at Moscow on Aug 15th 2019, bird strike into both engines forces landing - YouTube[/ame]