The corn hasn’t been harvested yet in New Mexico…I bet Siberian corn fields still have corn in them, or stalks remain and no time for them to be plowed under and grass to grow tall.
Russian Airbus A320 lands in field.
- Thread starter Just a civilian pilot
- Start date
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2021
- Messages
- 910
Yep, they diverted with the landing gear down ( says only gear doors open but it's not possible to retract the gear if the green system is lost ).
Airbus fuel penalty factor is 180% increase in burn due to drag.
Flight management system predictions for estimated fuel required are not valid in a situation like this.
My guess is they didn’t realize this and either figured it out when too far away to come back or when the low fuel lights came on ( 3000 pounds fuel left ).
Airbus fuel penalty factor is 180% increase in burn due to drag.
Flight management system predictions for estimated fuel required are not valid in a situation like this.
My guess is they didn’t realize this and either figured it out when too far away to come back or when the low fuel lights came on ( 3000 pounds fuel left ).
Last edited:
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2021
- Messages
- 910
Here’s the updated information from the Aviation Herald highlighted in yellow.
Blew the green system at gear retraction but the gear doors stayed open ( 15% fuel drag penalty ). Anytime I have heard of a green system blowing a line is on gear retraction.
They only climbed to 18,000 for the 320 nm diversion which is low ( higher fuel burn ).
Flight plan diversion alternate fuel required is based on a certain altitude, speed ( cost index ) and clean ( flaps up, gear, gear doors closed ).
FMS fuel predictions are unreliable with the gear doors down and manual fuel calculations are required.
If you initiate a diversion ( supposed to climb to proper altitude to diversion airport or burn off ) with starting fuel 4200 kilograms and you tell ATC you will land with 1200 kilograms remaining , that means the burn is 3000 kilograms but you need to factor in the 15% fuel penalty.
They would have arrived at the alternate with 750 kilograms of fuel on board, minimum is 1000 ( low fuel warning lights come on at 1500 ).
We always say on BITOG to not speculate but we might never know what really happened and we like to read and try and understand incidents so that’s my guess.
Thats why I have learned from that accident.
Edit: Gear doors versus typo fear doors lol.
Blew the green system at gear retraction but the gear doors stayed open ( 15% fuel drag penalty ). Anytime I have heard of a green system blowing a line is on gear retraction.
They only climbed to 18,000 for the 320 nm diversion which is low ( higher fuel burn ).
Flight plan diversion alternate fuel required is based on a certain altitude, speed ( cost index ) and clean ( flaps up, gear, gear doors closed ).
FMS fuel predictions are unreliable with the gear doors down and manual fuel calculations are required.
If you initiate a diversion ( supposed to climb to proper altitude to diversion airport or burn off ) with starting fuel 4200 kilograms and you tell ATC you will land with 1200 kilograms remaining , that means the burn is 3000 kilograms but you need to factor in the 15% fuel penalty.
They would have arrived at the alternate with 750 kilograms of fuel on board, minimum is 1000 ( low fuel warning lights come on at 1500 ).
We always say on BITOG to not speculate but we might never know what really happened and we like to read and try and understand incidents so that’s my guess.
Thats why I have learned from that accident.
Edit: Gear doors versus typo fear doors lol.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2021
- Messages
- 910
I do not think so but something about the story doesn’t make sense unless they really did screw up that bad.
The Captain reportedly stated that the reason he did a go-around was because the winds were too strong but they weren’t.
The only reason I would divert in a situation like that would ( assuming the runway was long enough, and it was ) be because of the loss of nose wheel steering and if I was aware that the airport ( airline ) did not have a tow bar and tractor to tow the plane off the runway to the gate ( and to an airport with maintenance so the aircraft isn’t stuck there ).
The plane would be stuck on the runway ( worse if only one runway ) , with no tractor, and no tow bar.
Realizing that the burn to alternate would be off and FMS fuel predictions would be unreliable and require mental math to recalculate how much fuel first.
I actually had a scenario like this in the sim when I did one of my command upgrade sims ( gear would not retract after go around due to low ceiling and fog non-precision approach ). I diverted to an airport with an ILS ( did the quick mental math, disregarded FMS fuel predictions ) and was prepared to blow mins to auto land CAT ILS ( it’s an ILS, not non-precision). We didn’t have enough fuel to make the alternate with the gear stuck down, plus heavy ice was reported en route to alternate ( can’t fly through heavy ice with gear down ).
Edited: do not eat and type at the same time.
Last edited:
Such as with the C130 that landed in a field after a midair collision, broken up and trucked out.
:quality(70)/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/archetype/3IBZWYI4PFDANHPQLHP653AWAY.jpg)
The incredible story of how this Marine crash-landed a KC-130J, saving its crew after a midair collision
Military Times' Marine of the Year helped save the lives of his crew with his heroic piloting ― and got a new call sign out of it.
www.marinecorpstimes.com
Maybe... it sure will be used to fix other airbus in the inventory though
apparently from what I have read, hacking up airplanes in Russia is fairly commonplace, simply because of all the sanctions it is almost impossible to get replacement parts. https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/how-russia-keeps-its-fleet-western-jets-air-2023-08-23/
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2021
- Messages
- 910
Won’t fix the pilot problem though.
Latest update on “Aviation Herald” is that they landed with only 200 KGS fuel remaining.
The accident is so bizarre we will probably never know the truth but I wouldn’t fly on that airline even if they had brand new planes , lots of spare parts and no embargo.
How they ended up with only 200 KGS ( on a field, not even at the alternate ) of fuel considering they said they used a 25% fuel penalty factor when it’s only 15% with gear doors open is bizarre. They should have landed with even more fuel than they planned.
The min fuel to land with is 1000 KGS. How they burned so much additional fuel is mind boggling to me. They used an extra 800 , just to get to the field , which is short of the diversion airport.
Also, when you lose the Green hydraulics , you lose “ normal “ brakes and I cannot help myself from speculating ( the curious pilot in me ) that the crew didn’t fully understand what losing “ normal “ brakes means when it appeared on the ECAM STATUS page following the failure.
All Airbus is telling pilots is that the brakes had switched to alternate mode BUT you still have anti skid which is all that matters ( huge increase in landing distance if you lose anti skid ).
If a pilot saw that message on the ECAM but didn’t fully understand it, I could see them being worried the runway was too short, but it wasn’t.
Diverting, incorrectly calculating how much extra fuel would be required ended up being the safety issue.
Unless they had a fuel leak also ( which would be totally unrelated and so remote ) , there is no other explanation as fuel doesn’t just start “ decreasing” on the fuel gauges as they state.
Excuse me for continuing to comment and speculate on this story but I find it particularly interesting as a pilot for some reason.
Because we may never know what happened that caused the forced landing in a field, speculation is all we have.
Last edited:
Figure 10. Simplified schematic of hydraulic system
Green vs blue hydraulic systemsI can't get the image to paste but
Ilyushin has the IL-900-40 but not sure many made it into production
if this is true, it will be interesting TV:
mentourpilot.com
Update: Ural Airlines Plans To Fly A320 Out Of Field! - Mentour Pilot
It now appears that Ural Airlines is preparing to fly an Airbus A320 out of the field where its crew landed it, during a recent emergency.
mentourpilot.com
Jackson_Slugger
$50 Site Donor 2022
Airbus has told the Russian gov't to stop flying their aircraft in general over the inaccessible spare parts due to sanctions...
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2021
- Messages
- 910
That would be interesting to watch.if this is true, it will be interesting TV:
Update: Ural Airlines Plans To Fly A320 Out Of Field! - Mentour Pilot
It now appears that Ural Airlines is preparing to fly an Airbus A320 out of the field where its crew landed it, during a recent emergency.
Despite the obvious concerns, it would be one heck of a bumpy take-off.
I have taken off out of some places that were "paved" but rougher than you could imagine.
I noticed this article mentions the possibility that the landing gear was never fully retracted and that would explain the much higher fuel burn but not why the pilots were not aware.
Hopefully, no birds are around on take-off.
Owen Lucas
$100 Site Donor 2023
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2021
- Messages
- 2,586
Field looks pretty soft, I presume they will wait for the ground to freeze before flying away.
They are getting into mud season, it is either now, or January-march.
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2021
- Messages
- 910
I bet the Irish leasing company that owns the aircraft is shaking its head, again.
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2021
- Messages
- 910
The story is starting to make more sense now.
The pilots aborted the landing due to a green hydraulic failure, not because the "winds were too strong" ( they weren't ), and mishandled the situation from that point.
The latest update from the Aviation Herald states the landing gear never retracted ( pilots selected it up but never retracted ) because the Green hydraulic failure occurred BEFORE the pilot aborted the landing and selected the gear up.
Pilots incorrectly felt they didn't have enough runway to come back and land and felt it was safer to divert to another airport with a longer runway but never realized the landing gear was still down ( 180% increase in fuel required ).
A single hydraulic failure on the Airbus ( Green, blue, or yellow ) should be an extremely simple failure to deal with but they made it very complicated, and unsafe ( credit for landing short versus flaming out, but ).
Luckily it happened during daylight, in good weather, and not over a built-up area.
Latest from the Aviation Herald:
On Sep 26th 2023 Rosaviatsia reported during the final approach to Omsk, while extending the landing gear, there had been a green hydraulic failure prompting the crew to initiate a go around. The landing gear lever was placed into the up position, but the landing gear did not retract according to the FDR data, the failure of the gear retraction however was not noticed by the crew. While holding near Omsk the crew calculated the landing distance and calculated the fuel needed to divert to the alternate aerodrome followed by the decision to divert to Novosibirsk. While enroute to Novosibirsk the crew detected the increased fuel consumption and lack of fuel to reach Novosibirsk, selected a landing site from the air and landed there with 216 liters of fuel remaining. The failure of the hydraulic system occurred due to a fractured hose in the control line of the right main landing gear door.
The pilots aborted the landing due to a green hydraulic failure, not because the "winds were too strong" ( they weren't ), and mishandled the situation from that point.
The latest update from the Aviation Herald states the landing gear never retracted ( pilots selected it up but never retracted ) because the Green hydraulic failure occurred BEFORE the pilot aborted the landing and selected the gear up.
Pilots incorrectly felt they didn't have enough runway to come back and land and felt it was safer to divert to another airport with a longer runway but never realized the landing gear was still down ( 180% increase in fuel required ).
A single hydraulic failure on the Airbus ( Green, blue, or yellow ) should be an extremely simple failure to deal with but they made it very complicated, and unsafe ( credit for landing short versus flaming out, but ).
Luckily it happened during daylight, in good weather, and not over a built-up area.
Latest from the Aviation Herald:
On Sep 26th 2023 Rosaviatsia reported during the final approach to Omsk, while extending the landing gear, there had been a green hydraulic failure prompting the crew to initiate a go around. The landing gear lever was placed into the up position, but the landing gear did not retract according to the FDR data, the failure of the gear retraction however was not noticed by the crew. While holding near Omsk the crew calculated the landing distance and calculated the fuel needed to divert to the alternate aerodrome followed by the decision to divert to Novosibirsk. While enroute to Novosibirsk the crew detected the increased fuel consumption and lack of fuel to reach Novosibirsk, selected a landing site from the air and landed there with 216 liters of fuel remaining. The failure of the hydraulic system occurred due to a fractured hose in the control line of the right main landing gear door.
That's because takeoffs are optional, but landings are mandatory.
Similar threads
