Air crash. Investigations ✈️

​​The miracle on the Neva river

Accident

On August 21, 1963, an Aeroflot Tu-124 was flying the route Tallinn – Moscow. There were 52 people on board (45 passengers and 7 crew members). Problems arose immediately after takeoff. The nose landing gear became jammed in a partially retracted position. The crew intended to return, but dense fog suddenly covered Tallinn Airport. Air traffic controllers decided to direct the distressed aircraft to land in Leningrad.

The crew flew the aircraft to Leningrad Airport at a low altitude - 4,200 meters. A belly landing was expected, so all emergency services were on high alert. Fire trucks and ambulances arrived at the runway. Before landing, the pilots decided to burn off fuel to reduce the risk of fire, so they began circling above Leningrad at an altitude of 500-600 meters. At the same time, the crew tried to fully extend the jammed nose landing gear using a pole through a hatch in the cabin floor.

An hour and ten minutes into the flight, one of the engines stopped during the eighth circle. The crew was given permission to fly to airport through the city center. However, they didn't make it. When the airliner was near citycentre, the second engine suddenly failed. The Tu-124 began gliding from an altitude of 500 meters above central Leningrad.

The crew had no choice but to attempt a water landing on the Neva River. The commander handed control to the co-pilot, who had previously served in the naval aviation and had experience in water landings. The Tu-124 flew 4 meters above the Alexander Nevsky Bridge, and landed on the water near the Finland Railway Bridge. The co-pilot skillfully oriented the Tu-124, preventing it from diving and the tail from hitting the water. Only 14 seconds passed from the second engine stopping to the water landing.

The water landing was made between the Alexander Nevsky Bridge and the railway bridge, opposite the Alexander Nevsky Lavra. The river width at this point was about 400 meters. During the water landing, the airliner was punctured and began to sink. A passing tugboat came to the rescue. Using a cable, which was attached after breaking a window in the pilot's cabin, the tugboat pulled the plane to the right bank of the Neva River. The passengers and crew were successfully evacuated, and no one was injured.

Efforts were made to keep the airliner afloat, with water being pumped out of it for a day. However, water continued to flow in through the punctures in the fuselage. The next morning, the Tu-124 sank. Eventually, pontoons were placed under the aircraft and it was towed to the territory of the present-day exhibition complex.
One theory suggested that the crew was at fault. There wasn't enough fuel for a normal landing on the runway because the crew had incorrectly calculated the actual fuel consumption and had not taken into account that the flight was at low altitude with the landing gear extended. Moreover, there were contradictions in the crew members' statements. The captain, co-pilot, navigator, and flight engineer disagreed on the engine mode and the exact amount of fuel on board.

According to another theory, there was a failure of the electric fuel gauge. That is, there were readings, but there was no kerosene left. The captain stated that when the engines stopped, the fuel gauge and flow meter showed a remaining 1600 kg. In his opinion, fuel might have still been in the tanks, but for some reason, it was not being supplied to the engines. The co-pilot confirmed this. The flight engineer reported that the red fuel light had come on a few seconds before the engine failure. The navigator explained that the fuel gauge could be inaccurate in either direction, and such observations had already been noted in the aircraft logbook. Since the plane was underwater, it was impossible to determine the instrument's functionality.

​​The Old Fleet

For many years, Iran has been under serious sanctions that also affect aviation. Although planes still fly and transport passengers there, the sanctions one way or another impact flight safety.

On January 9, 2011, a Boeing 727 of Iran Air was operating a domestic flight from Tehran to Urmia. There were 96 passengers and 9 crew members on board. The aircraft itself was manufactured back in 1974. It had barely flown since 1984 and only returned to service in 2002 after a major overhaul.

That day, the plane's departure was delayed by two hours due to poor weather. In Urmia, low clouds and snowfall were observed. During the approach to the destination, the crew made a navigational error and failed to intercept the glide path. Descending to 1,800 meters without spotting the runway, the pilots aborted the landing and went for a go-around. Also, the crew informed the air traffic controller of their intention to return to Tehran.

When the aircraft reached an altitude of 2,700 meters, the engine thrust dropped. The airliner began to descend and bank. Despite switching engines №1 and №3 to maximum mode, they soon stalled. Attempts to restart them were unsuccessful. Eventually, the Boeing crashed into the ground 15 kilometers from the airport and was completely destroyed. 78 people on board, including the pilots, were killed in the disaster. All survivors were injured. A 70-centimeter layer of snow on the ground hindered the rescue operation at the crash site.

The investigation determined that during the go-around, the aircraft experienced severe icing. Under these conditions, the crew violated instructions while managing the engines, which led to flameout on two of them. Factors contributing to the disaster identified in the investigation report included outdated onboard systems, lack of suitable simulators for adverse weather conditions, non-compliance with standard operating procedures, and inadequate crew resource management.

​​Destructive Oxygen

On July 25, 2008, a Qantas Boeing 747-438 was en route from London to Melbourne with a stopover in Hong Kong. There were 365 people on board - 346 passengers and 19 crew members.

About an hour after departing from Hong Kong, when the airliner was at an altitude of around 9,000 meters, there was a loud bang. In front of the passengers, a section of the floor collapsed. Below it was the cargo hold, in the wall of which there was a hole 2 meters wide and 1.5 meters high. The cabin were depressurized, and oxygen masks were released.

Upon seeing the depressurization warning, pilots quickly descended the aircraft to 3,000 meters, which is an altitude where people do not experience oxygen starvation. After that, the crew turned the plane towards the nearest airport. It turned out to be Manila Airport, the capital of the Philippines, located 475 kilometers away. The explosion and depressurization damaged the navigation, landing, and braking systems, but this did not result in a loss of control. In the end, 54 minutes after the explosion, the pilots managed to make a successful emergency landing.

In the incident, no one was seriously injured. Even the cargo was practically undamaged. Unlike the aircraft. On the right side a huge hole in the fuselage was visible. It was located at the level of the cargo hold, at the base of the wing. Investigators had to find out how and why it appeared.

The first thing they did was to carefully examine the cargo hold. There they noticed cylinders, the air from which is supplied to the oxygen masks. Seven of them were supposed to be installed on the right wall of the nose section of the cargo compartment. However, in the crashed Boeing, there were only six - the cylinder located in the middle was missing.

By analyzing the nature of the damage, the investigators managed to reconstruct the picture of what happened. The oxygen in the cylinders is under high pressure. One of the cylinders suddenly exploded, with the explosion occurring at its bottom. As a result, the fuselage was punctured, and the cylinder itself, like a rocket, flew upwards. It broke through the ceiling of the cargo hold, tearing 85 electrical wires and control cables for the ailerons, and ended up in the cabin. There, the cylinder hit the handle for opening the right door, moving it 120 degrees from the "locked" position. Investigators believe that it then fell back through the hole in the cabin floor and flew out of the airplane through the tear in the fuselage.

The cylinder was never found, so the investigation could not determine the exact cause of the explosion. Even after checking and testing all the cylinders on board, as well as cylinders from the same batch, experts could not identify any design or manufacturing defects and shortcomings. As a result, the commission concluded that the oxygen cylinders of this series did not pose a threat to flight safety.

After being repaired, the Boeing 747 flew for about another year under the Qantas livery but was later sold to a Nigerian airline, where it operated for the next six years.

​​Destruction of engine

In 2010, a ban on the operation of the Tupolev Tu-154 was introduced in Iran. It happened after a disaster that killed 168 people. The final report on it was recently published, but only in Persian. Thanks to enthusiasts who translated it into English.

On July 15, 2009, the Tupolev Tu-154M airliner of Caspian Airlines operated a flight on the Tehran - Yerevan route. The aircraft was produced in 1987 by the Kuibyshev aircraft plant. A month before the disaster, it had proceeded full technical maintenance at the airport of Russian Mineralnye Vody.

During the climb at 8770 meters, fire alarm in engine No. 1 was triggered. Pilot informed the air traffic controller about it. Then plane suddenly changed course and began to fall. Crew did not answer any more calls. The plane crashed in a deserted area and completely destroyed.

The investigation was carried out by the Iranian Aviation Accident Investigation Council (IAAIB) with the participation of Russian specialists. Council immediately established that destruction of engine No. 1 was cause of the crash. Its remains were sent to Russia for examination.

It found that the first stage of the low pressure compressor had a crack due to fatigue of the titanium alloy. This led to the separation of parts of the rotor disc and the destruction of the engine. The scattered parts damaged the hydraulic systems and fuel lines of the other engines. Fuel and hydraulic fluid burst into flames. Fire destroyed the control systems and the crew lost control of the aircraft.

In 2010, a Russian engine manufacturer issued a service bulletin requiring replacement of a low pressure compressor on all engines with more than 8000 operating hours. In this case, they are no longer considered serviceable. The lack of information from the manufacturer about the need for checks and replacements was highlighted as one of the reasons contributing to the disaster. Also, violations were found in the actions of the crew.

The crash investigation report was drawn up in 2011, but it appeared on the IAAIB website only in 2019. And only in Persian. Such actions do not contribute to the improvement of flight safety, since late publication and amateur translations can lead to distortion of meaning and omission of details. The reports must be prepared in the international aviation language - English.

​​Unlucky Airplane Hijacker

One of the most ridiculous attempts to hijack an airplane took place on May 25, 2000 in the Philippines. The Philippine Airlines Airbus A330-301 was a scheduled domestic passenger flight to Manila. The flight carried 278 passengers and 13 crew members.

Towards the end of the flight, when the crew was preparing to land, one of the passengers suddenly fired a gun into a bulkhead and demanded access to the cockpit. But pilots barricaded themselves and refused to let him in.

In addition to the gun, the man had a hand grenade with him. Under the threat of an explosion, he ordered pilots to turn around the plane and go to the airport of departure. However, the pilots reported that this is impossible, as the aircraft would run out of fuel.

After the hijacking failed, our hero switched to plan B. He decided to commit an unusual robbery. First, the offender announced that he needed money and invited passengers to put in his bag "voluntary donations" in the form of money and valuables. After the bag fulfilled, he demanded pilots to descend and depressurize the aircraft. He intended to open the door to the cabin. The man had a homemade parachute with him. According to eyewitnesses, the design of the parachute was so artisanal that the criminal refined it right in the cabin from scrap materials.

When the aircraft descended to an altitude of 1800 meters, unsuccessful hijacker put on a ski mask, swimming goggles, took a bag with valuables and opened the back door of the cabin. However, due to the fact that he could not overcome the oncoming wind flow, the flight attendant had to literally push him out. At the same time, he left a gun and one shoe on board.

The plane landed safely with the door open. On the ground, the crew members expressed doubts that the criminal could survive after the jump.

Indeed, his body was found 70 kilometers from Manila three days after the attempted hijacking. According to the police report, the man crashed because he could not open the parachute. Later, his brother said that the hijacker always wanted to go in for parachuting. The jump from the jet Airbus was his first and last attempt.

Perhaps the hero of this story was inspired by the crime of Dan Cooper, who successfully hijacked a jet plane in 1971, received a ransom and also jumped with a parachute. The truth is, the question of whether Cooper survived the jump remains open. But that's a completely different story.

​​Flight without electricity

On September 16, 1971 Tupolev Tu-134 was a scheduled passenger flight from Budapest to Kiev. It was an aircraft in basic modification, produced in 1968. It belonged to a Hungarian airline.

The flight was overshadowed by poor weather conditions. It was reason of one hour delay of departure. Also, cloudy weather was at the Kiev airport Borispol. The vertical visibility was 80 meters and the horizontal visibility was 1700. On the fligth, the weather minimum was 150 by 1800 meters. The commander did not divert to an alternate aerodrome in Odessa, hoping for an improvement in weather conditions.

After the start of the descent for landing in Kiev, automaticly activated the emergency power supply scheme. The reason was the failure of all four generators. Now the on-board electrical systems were powered exclusively by batteries with an extremely limited supply of energy. After that, the fire system activation warning was triggered.

In such conditions, the PIC had to declare an emergency and demand an immediate direct landing approach. However, he did not. Therefore, the unsuspecting air traffic control sent the board to carry out the standard long scheme. Also, the commander gave him false data about his weather minimum - 60 by 600 meters. In addition, the crew did not turn off unnecessary electrical appliances. Therefore, for example, a working refrigerator and kitchen consumed a large amount of energy, depleting the batteries.

When approaching, the aircraft significantly deviated from the glide path and was sent to the second round. Next approach due to the premature fourth turn also ended in failure. There was not enough time for the third approach.

The batteries were completely discharged by that time. Navigation devices began to fail without power supply. Due to low clouds and poor visibility, the Hungarian crew lost their orientation in space. Therefore, nobody detected how the plane went into a steep decline. Pilots saw the approaching land only after leaving the clouds at an altitude of 50-70 meters . But they didn't manage to do anything.

28 kilometers north of the airport, at a speed of 500-580 km/h, Tupolev Tu-134 hit the ground with its right wing and crashed into a railway embankment. The plane was completely destroyed. All 41 passengers and 8 crew members on board were killed.

The investigation found that the cause of the incident was a fatal combination of several factors.

- The generators were serviceable. The activation of the emergency power supply scheme and the signal about the activation of the fire system occurred due to system failure.

- In Kiev at that time there were poor weather conditions, but the commander showed excessive self-confidence.

- The crew did not turn off unnecessary devices and did not declare an emergency.

As a result, the battery only lasted 29 minutes of flight. After turning off the power, the crew lost control of the situation.

​​Deadly dispute

Self-confidence is a useful quality. However, overconfident people can get involved in doubt actions, that do not lead to anything good. They think that they are in control of the situation till the last moment and admit their mistakes when it is already difficult to fix something.

On October 20, 1986, soviet Tupolev Tu-134 made an stopover at the Kurumoch airport in Kuibyshev (Samara). He followed the Sverdlovsk-Grozny route. The weather was good. The plane was flown by an experienced crew. There were no any reports of malfunctions.

At the moment of touching the runway, the liner hit its surface hard. Subsequently, eyewitnesses indicated that the plane was descending too quickly and at a strange angle. The landing gear crushed immediately after the impact. The plane layed on its belly and slid along the runway by inertia. At the same time, the Tu-134 began to incline to the right, and it began to carry off the runway. Outside the edge of the lane, the machine rolled over over the right fender upside down and stopped. At the moment of the upheaval, the right wing of the aircraft almost completely broke off and flew off to the side, and the left one folded. The plane split in two. From the destroyed fuel tanks, fuel began poured onto the red-hot turbines of the engines. A fire started.

The rescuers arrived quickly - in one and a half minutes. But, despite all their efforts, 53 passengers and 5 crew members died in the burning plane. Most of them were poisoned by combustion products. PIC, first officer, navigating officer and flight engineer received minor injuries. But first officer, saving passengers, swallowed poisonous smoke and died on the way to the hospital. Subsequently, 11 more people died in hospitals. Survived 24.

During the analysis of the wreckage of the aircraft, flight recorders were found. They shed light on the ridiculous cause of this disaster. The voice recorder recorded the commander's conversation with other crew members. During the approach, he argued with colleagues that he would land the aircraft on the runway only according to the readings of the instruments. Or as they say “blindly”. To do this, he closed the cocpit windows on the left side with curtains.

The rest of the crew did not interfere with his actions. During the approaching by instruments, the PIC made a mistake. As a result, the aircraft approached the ground with an excess of vertical speed at a too steep angle of inclination. At the last moment, the captain realized that everything was not going as it should. He instructed the flight engineer to open the curtain and he pulled the steering wheel towards him. But it was too late. Calculations made later showed that the landing gear hit the runway with a load one and a half times their ultimate strength, which is why they immediately broke.

The aircraft commander was sentenced to 15 years in prison. After the review of the sentence, the term was reduced to 6 years, which he completely served. Nothing is known about his further fate.

Typhoon landing

Typhoons are not uncommon in East Asia. 1999 turned out to be rich in these natural phenomena. About 35 typhoons and tropical storms regularly ravaged the East Asian coast from January to December.

Typhoon Sam was one of the most serious and destructive. It hit Hong Kong on the night of 22 August. Heavy rain and gusts of wind, reaching 38 metre per second, caused landslides, floods and damage to urban infrastructure.

On August 22 at 18.43, the typhoon was still about 50 km from Hong Kong. But the wind was already getting stronger. At this point, the wide-body McDonnell Douglas MD-11 of China Airlines was landing at Hong Kong International Airport. The aircraft operated flight 642 on the Bangkok-Taipei route with a stopover in Hong Kong. According to the information received from the ground, the meteorological indicators were within normal limits. Therefore, the crew made a decision to land.

However, during the landing, the plane hit hard on the runway, turned over and caught fire. Thanks to the pouring rain and the prompt actions of the emergency services, the fire was quickly extinguished. Witnesses who were in the car not far from the airport filmed the landing on camera.

It's hard to believe that out of 315 people on board, only three died.

The investigation was complicated by the lack of data from the flight recorder, which was severely damaged by the impact. As a result, it was not possible to accurately restore the last minutes of the landing approach.

According to the official report, the pilot error was the main version. Despite the warning about worsening weather conditions, the pilots decided to land. When approaching the runway, they exceeded the vertical speed (the rate of descent upon landing was about 6 m/s). As a result, the plane first touched the runway with the right landing gear, sagged, and engine number 3 hit the runway. Due to the impact, the right wing separated from the fuselage, and the aircraft itself turned over on the lift of the left wing and caught fire.

Gusty winds were named as another possible reason, as well as the large mass of the aircraft due to the fuel supply. The pilots were aware of worsening weather conditions and, in case of impossibility of landing, planned to leave for an alternate airfield in Taipei. Therefore, they were filled to the brim.

Based on the results of the airline's investigation, several suggestions were given to China Airlines concerning its training for flights in difficult weather conditions and in conditions of strong wind gusts.

Channel created