OA940 wrote:

BBC says that according to authorities, there is '' "no chance" anyone could have survived.''. Can a 148 even carry 71 people? Could this be a mechanical failure, seeing that the plane just dived to the ground? No matter what happened this is very sad. RIP to those who died.

An AN-148 has a max seating capacity of 85 ( 1 class dense )

I understand the human nature to speculate, but all of this input is useless until we have hard facts with official sources.

The fetishism some of y'all have about these events is kinda gross IMHO

Blankbarcode wrote:

I understand the human nature to speculate, but all of this input is useless until we have hard facts with official sources.

The fetishism some of y'all have about these events is kinda gross IMHO

Then don't click on the thread and read the final report when it comes out.
This is an aviation enthusiast forum and not an official investigation body.
Nothing gross have been posted apart from your "contribution".

Cush wrote:

Reports now state that the pilot refused de-icing prior to departing from Domodedovo (DME).

Also, the pilot requested an emergency landing in Zhukovsky.

http://ren.tv/novosti/2018-02-11/chto-i ... podmoskove

Terrible tragedy.. Are they really complaining in that link that the rescuers are 'interfering with the work of journalists'?

It should be noted that the rescuers interfere with the work of journalists at the site of the tragedy. The observer of Izvestia, Alexander Samokhvalov, was attacked. The journalist has a brain concussion, he intends to apply to the law enforcement agencies. On the shots you can see how the man pushed him and struck.

All users are reminded that attaching images must include a link otherwise it will be in violation of our copyright rules. Also please refrain from posting the names of victims as it is inappropriate and disrespectful to those who have lost their lives in this crash

Excuse me, why are two texts missing from me? With a list of victims and photographs? All this information is published in public sources and is official, but the messages are simply deleted. Did I do something wrong?

To many others before me, I add my condolences to those aboard, and their loved ones.

Link to the publication: https://www.facebook.com/ntvofficial/posts/1781841301875369
The names of the victims published on the official sites: http://tass.ru/proisshestviya/4948653
These are all official sources, there are no copyright violations or laws.

R.I.P. To those who died in the crash. So sad to hear this. Before they reported about a helicopter collision, I was kinda thinking that it was similar to the AirAisa A320 that was climbing rapidly and then dropped to the ground. Now it doesn't look like the plane was climbing rapidly, but did it look like the pilots might of stalled the plane during the climb? Because this seems confusing to see a catastrophic incident with multiple of causes for the plane to drop like that.

No deicing? Hmm. But remember that early reports can be faulty. And there might not have been any ice on wings at that point.

But, no deicing => contaminated wing => flies fine with flaps => draw in flaps as the plane ascends => no more lift => crash?

According to Russian laws, all passengers were insured. Relatives of the victims will receive insurance payments in the amount of 2 million rubles for each victim. That's about $ 34,000. For those who were on a working trip and for the crew members will receive an additional 1 million rubles (~$ 17 000). Also relatives of victims will be paid 100 thousand rubles (~$1,700) of immediate assistance.
Link: http://tass.ru/proisshestviya/4948235

Aesma wrote:

Cush wrote:

Reports now state that the pilot refused de-icing prior to departing from Domodedovo (DME).

No deicing, OK, that would explain how lift would be lost so quickly. If at take-off there was some ice already on the wings, then it's easier for more ice to accumulate quickly when climbing through cold clouds.

Correct, I have seen this in some documents. This may be a cause of why this happend, but I’m still not 100 percent sure if Ice was the main cause, I think pilot error may have also played a roll in this....

Rest In Peace to all of the victims of this terrible incident, and my heart goes out to the families and freinds who have lost someone in this terrible accident


Edit: by pilot error meaning the pilot reacting differently to an ice issue.

sq421 wrote:

Don't mean to sound shrewd, but I think it's time the Russians take a look at the reliability of the Antonov fleet.

Do you want to be taken serious ?

This is no ancient soviet-era Antonov .
The AN-148 is a rather modern aircraft (first flight of the type in 2004 ) and RA-61704 was built in 2011 ...

MHG wrote:

and RA-61704 was built in 2011 ...

RA-61704 was built in 2010:
https://russianplanes.net/REGINFO/1224

I'm hesitating to put the link, but the Daily Mail site has a lot of photos of the crash site (and also of some of the victims with names, beware). Lots of fragments on the ground, but because the abundant snow, at least to me look as "rained" as opossed to scattered travelling with high horizontal speed. (Originating from mid-air disintegration vs crash after loss of control). Surely I'm wrong.

MHG wrote:

sq421 wrote:

Don't mean to sound shrewd, but I think it's time the Russians take a look at the reliability of the Antonov fleet.

Do you want to be taken serious ?

This is no ancient soviet-era Antonov .
The AN-148 is a rather modern aircraft (first flight of the type in 2004 ) and RA-61704 was built in 2011 ...

Indeed, the cockpit suggests similar technology to that of the CRJ (happy to be corrected). Russian stuff is usually very hardy, it has to be out there!

Very sad for everyone involved.

EDIT: Stay classy, Daily Mail...

Situation regarding mid-air collision not clear to me.

http://avherald.com/h?article=4b4cb236&opt=0 says:

Russian News Agencies Lenta and Interfax reports the remains of a second aircraft, a helicopter, were found near the crash site, the two aircraft collided in midair. Interfax later dropped the reports of a helicopter being involved, Lenta still reports the second aircraft.

Russia's Post Office reported there was a bag of about 20kg mail on board of the AN-148. The bag may have triggered the agency reports of a midair collision with a post office helicopter, however Russia's Post Office does not operate helicopters in the Moscow region.

Seems we need to have more details before accepting the mid-air collision hypothesis.

Scorpius wrote:

Excuse me, why are two texts missing from me? With a list of victims and photographs? All this information is published in public sources and is official, but the messages are simply deleted. Did I do something wrong?

Take a couple of hours and read through the new volume of rules. You probably broke about 15 different ones.

sq421 wrote:

Don't mean to sound shrewd

Don't worry. No problem there.

Trigger warning: includes crash speculation. If you're of a nervous disposition or are offended by such speculation then skip this post.

Soviet/Ukrainian aircraft tend to be heavy and over engineered with relatively thick skin and built like tanks. At 6000' cabin diff pressure isn't much at all (assuming it works similarly to 737/A320). Metal fatigue could cause cracking and a structural failure but I'd be surprised if it would have caused a catastrophic failure even if it was the cause of the issue.

My initial feeling is a bomb but as we seen from Daalo airlines a small bomb (even much higher than 6000') won't do a whole lot of damage.

The situation is very confused. Reports suggest it fell to earth in several pieces. If it wasn't a bomb and it wasn't metal fatigue, the only thing that would cause structural failure would be overstressing following a botched inflight upset recovery.

Either way a very sad incident.

If there had been a mid-air collision, and some debris on the ground from a helicopter allegedly were found, I wonder if a military helicopter would have been involved.

Eyewitnesses reported that the aircraft was on fire before it hit the ground. However, in such cases eyewitness accounts are notoriously unreliable. There are many accidents where the aircraft was for sure not on fire but very many eyewitnesses reported this.

I think untill the flight recorders, that I believe one has already been recovered, are analysed we won't know much. But I assume with the location of the accident and expertise of the Russians we'll get answers quite quickly.

CCTV footage shows just one object impacting the ground. A straight down, high energy impact in one piece. Eyewitnesses ALWAYS say there was smoke and flames and that the engines were 'struggling'. The CCTV doesn't lie however. I can see no smoke or flames, just a massive fireball on impact.

sevenair wrote:

CCTV footage shows just one object impacting the ground. A straight down, high energy impact in one piece. Eyewitnesses ALWAYS say there was smoke and flames and that the engines were 'struggling'. The CCTV doesn't lie however. I can see no smoke or flames, just a massive fireball on impact.

Do you have a link to the CCTV footage?

/Fredrik

Nicoeddf wrote:

zeke wrote:

The speed altitude readout to me may suggest airframe icing.

If it isn't a midair collision, as suggested, than I agree.

Was thinking in cruise ice kept developing aircraft kept trimming to maintain altitude to the point where trim limits were reached.

Scorpius wrote:

According to Russian laws, all passengers were insured. Relatives of the victims will receive insurance payments in the amount of 2 million rubles for each victim. That's about $ 34,000. For those who were on a working trip and for the crew members will receive an additional 1 million rubles (~$ 17 000). Also relatives of victims will be paid 100 thousand rubles (~$1,700) of immediate assistance.
Link: http://tass.ru/proisshestviya/4948235

Miniscule payments barely covering funeral expenses. And insurance companies in Russia usually make sure it takes a VERY long time to get the payouts.

sq421 wrote:

Don't mean to sound shrewd, but I think it's time the Russians take a look at the reliability of the Antonov fleet.

And you base this on what? Do you have information about Antonov fleet reliability?

Can we maybe start another thread on non-aviation on the evils of the Daily Mail? 71 people are dead and the tedious, cliched yet very a la mode DM bashing is tiresome and disrespectful.

I truly hope that people will remember this the next time they complain about delays due to the de-icing queue. Rules exist for a reason and those procedures are for your own safety, so don't moan about the wait if you to arrive alive. It's better to have your flight delayed and deiced than departed and dead.

neomax wrote:

I truly hope that people will remember this the next time they complain about delays due to the de-icing queue. Rules exist for a reason and those procedures are for your own safety, so don't moan about the wait if you to arrive alive. It's better to have your flight delayed and deiced than departed and dead.

De-ice only protects the aircraft on the ground, it blows off during the takeoff roll.

BREECH wrote:

MHG wrote:

sq421 wrote:

Don't mean to sound shrewd, but I think it's time the Russians take a look at the reliability of the Antonov fleet.

Do you want to be taken serious ?

This is no ancient soviet-era Antonov .

Do YOU want to be taken seriously? "Soviet-era Antonov" are working reliably on numerous regional routes, and they are no worse (or older) than some of the MD-80s and DC-9s than ply the skies around the world.

It appears that the airframe (c/n 04) had severe reliability problems due to being one of the very first aircraft off the line. It was grounded for several years until Saratov took it up from Rossiya. Like most other manufacturers (most notably with early 787s and A380s) Antonov is not immune to this issue.

Further, it is starting to appear as if the mid-air collision theory may have been triggered by the fact that the A/C was carrying mail. I could see how a journalist might think the tailcone of the An-148 was the aft end of a helicopter's cabin without the right technical expertise.

sevenair wrote:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fQktxb4eEG8#action=share

Terrible. Remarkable that even in a small town, CCTV is around to capture something like this.

BREECH wrote:

MHG wrote:

sq421 wrote:

Don't mean to sound shrewd, but I think it's time the Russians take a look at the reliability of the Antonov fleet.

Do you want to be taken serious ?

This is no ancient soviet-era Antonov .

Do YOU want to be taken seriously? "Soviet-era Antonov" are working reliably on numerous regional routes, and they are no worse (or older) than some of the MD-80s and DC-9s than ply the skies around the world.

Maybe I should have said it differently ...
Soviet-era aircraft are more prone to technical defects than newer ones simply due to their age.
And I consider the AN-148 as a rather new/modern type.
My reply was simply trying to direct "sq421"´s attention to the fact that non-western made aircraft (including those from soviet-era) are not less safe.
It has much more to do with operational environment/proper maintenance/etc. whether an aircraft is safe - or not.
sq421´s post implied that AN-148 is from the same era as all other "Antonovs" ...

Btw. I flew Motor Sich AN-24 (UR-47297) not long ago and I´m pretty sure I was in a safe aircraft - despite it having had its first flight during soviet-era in 1971 ...

Dominion301 wrote:

sevenair wrote:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fQktxb4eEG8#action=share

Terrible. Remarkable that even in a small town, CCTV is around to capture something like this.

That was a hefty impact ...

sq421 wrote:

Don't mean to sound shrewd, but I think it's time the Russians take a look at the reliability of the Antonov fleet.

We don't know that for sure, it could have been a pilot error. Then it doesn't matter what type of aircraft it is, if not piloted correctly every aircraft crashes. You shouldn't blame it on the aircraft until you know for sure what the cause was, and at the moment we don't know that. Overall the AN-148 is known as a reliable aircraft, no worse than the Embraer E-Jets for example. There could have been something wrong with it just like there could have been something wrong with any aircraft, but that's not to blame on the aircraft type.

BREECH wrote:

Scorpius wrote:

According to Russian laws, all passengers were insured. Relatives of the victims will receive insurance payments in the amount of 2 million rubles for each victim. That's about $ 34,000. For those who were on a working trip and for the crew members will receive an additional 1 million rubles (~$ 17 000). Also relatives of victims will be paid 100 thousand rubles (~$1,700) of immediate assistance.
Link: http://tass.ru/proisshestviya/4948235

Miniscule payments barely covering funeral expenses. And insurance companies in Russia usually make sure it takes a VERY long time to get the payouts.

No, payments are not small. The average cost of a funeral in Russia is from $500 to $3000. The average salary in the city of Orsk is about 20 000 rubles per month, or about $350. In this respect, insurance payments correspond to the multiple of annual earnings. For the amount of $ 35,000 you can now buy a house in the Moscow region, for example. So the amount of compensation is not small. Another thing that no amount of money will not bring back the dead relatives.

It always makes me upset when this happens, I cannot imagine what the families are going through waiting for the inevitable confirmation of what they already know.


Sleep in peace.

I have to ask: WHO exactly was on that flight?

aemoreira1981 wrote:

I have to ask: WHO exactly was on that flight?

Others have already linked the passenger list. The Daily Mail has photos of a number of the people on board.

While I didn’t really look into the details and history, they seemed to be typical, run-of-the-mill passengers and flight crew. Why do you ask?

sevenair wrote:

CCTV footage shows just one object impacting the ground. A straight down, high energy impact in one piece. Eyewitnesses ALWAYS say there was smoke and flames and that the engines were 'struggling'. The CCTV doesn't lie however. I can see no smoke or flames, just a massive fireball on impact.

Can you explain how you came to your conclusions?
I agree there is no obvious smoke or flames before the impact.
But from the video link you supplied, I cannot identify any single object or multiple objects falling.

It is true there is only one source for the fireball, but it is surely also possible that other parts of the aircraft separated and impacted the ground without being visible on this video? i.e. without generating their own separate fireballs.

With regard to your comment "straight down" - I disagree. The fireball had considerable momentum from right to left. I have witnessed a fireball from an aircraft that came straight down, and the fireball in that case went straight up, until dispersed by wind patterns. This was completely different, and implied a shallow impact trajectory at a high velocity. Whether this equates to a high-speed crash landing as if the pilot retained some control, I could not possibly say. But it was most definitely not "straight down" / falling like a brick.

If you have access to better quality footage than this, or have reasons to support your comments, please share.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fQktxb4eEG8#action=share

hOMSaR wrote:

aemoreira1981 wrote:

I have to ask: WHO exactly was on that flight?

Others have already linked the passenger list. The Daily Mail has photos of a number of the people on board.

While I didn’t really look into the details and history, they seemed to be typical, run-of-the-mill passengers and flight crew. Why do you ask?

I haven't read the list yet, but there is the idea of if someone knows too much in that country.

FR24 does show indicated airspeed data on their business accounts. In the last few minutes of the flight, the IAS data seemed to fluctuate between 400 and 900kts as it climbed through 4,000ft up to 6,000ft. Just before the descent begins it is showing an IAS of 898kts. Clearly erroneous but could this be a symptom of iced up pitots? Or just FR24 data glitches?

Dominion301 wrote:

sevenair wrote:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fQktxb4eEG8#action=share

Terrible. Remarkable that even in a small town, CCTV is around to capture something like this.

Maybe not
From what I can see on FR24, the crash site is not far away from Russian Federal Highway M5, which would have been fairly busy on a Sunday morning, and as we all know, many Russian cars carry dash-cams for insurance purposes. Having said that, I suspect there was heavy cloud cover and nobody saw anything of note.

FYI the M5 is part of a much larger highway network that begins in Cork (Ireland) as the E30, continues along the M4 corridor past LHR, then Felixstowe/Harwich -Hoek van Holland, on through Germany (past SXF), Poland etc, before wrapping around Moscow, passing close to SVO, DME, and also Zhukovsky, before continuing either as the Trans-Siberian highway (to Vladivostock) or route AH6 (to Busan, South Korea).or route AH7 (to Karachi, Pakistan)

So... if the skies had been clear, there could have been thousands of motorists who saw & possibly filmed this aircraft in it's final moments.

Source: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ty-347983/

Russian state airline GTK Rossiya, the only current user of the Antonov An-148 regional airliner, has criticised the aircraft's reliability as unacceptable and listed a string of problems including door locks, engine and APU failures. The reliability of the An-148 cannot guarantee a sufficient level of in-flight safety, Rossiya said in a Moscow presentation on the programme.

Scorpius wrote:

Link to the publication: https://www.facebook.com/ntvofficial/posts/1781841301875369
The names of the victims published on the official sites: http://tass.ru/proisshestviya/4948653
These are all official sources, there are no copyright violations or laws.

What part of the plane is that in the second pic?

I have flown several times on the An-148 and also on "04", besides that have worked on them and never missed a second talking to crews about the plane. From what I know, there were some issues with the plane in the beginning, but after some tine these minor issues were resolved. Pilots in general liked the plane.

To me, it was the last real Russian/Soviet airliner. It compared more to a Yak-42 rather than to the SSJ, which is the superior aircraft. You can see on the frames how they are handmade Soviet style. The avionics are domestic. The plane itself is of Aviant design, but in cooperation with Russia. The major issues have always been the D436 engines as well as the flight control system. There were several issues engine related and on "scare me to death" issue with flight controls on "01" departing LED.

I also was operated Soviet style, never go de icing and compensate with speed and pilot skills, hahaha. Also it was fllwn often out of trim limkts, with it being very nose heavy and a little aft compartment, most weight went to the front.

If I had to speculate: 5% pilot error, 35% engines, 60% flight controls.

Kilopond wrote:

Life.ru posted an eyewitness video from the crash site:

https://youtu.be/VBGIhF4L1OI

this has been deleated already.

If the CCTV footage is the incident, I would speculate ice. But... It looks so spread out. Regardless, what a sad ending. I admire the looks of this plane. It reminds me of the BAE 146, with only 2 engines.

MHG wrote:

Maybe I should have said it differently ...
Soviet-era aircraft are more prone to technical defects than newer ones simply due to their age.
And I consider the AN-148 as a rather new/modern type.
My reply was simply trying to direct "sq421"´s attention to the fact that non-western made aircraft (including those from soviet-era) are not less safe.
It has much more to do with operational environment/proper maintenance/etc. whether an aircraft is safe - or not.
sq421´s post implied that AN-148 is from the same era as all other "Antonovs" ...

Btw. I flew Motor Sich AN-24 (UR-47297) not long ago and I´m pretty sure I was in a safe aircraft - despite it having had its first flight during soviet-era in 1971 ...

Apparently my reply could have been nicer, too. I flew LOTS of An-24s. They are noisy, but surprisingly comfortable. Once you get used to the oscillating engine roar, it's even lulling. I never flew An-148 but I heard that all airlines who bought them experience a lot of downtime. WHICH is probably what the person who started this whole argument meant. That their reliability is bad as in they often stay on the ground while they should be in the air. If so, this is probably the worst possible topic to say it like that.