- cross-posted to:
- worldnews@lemmit.online
- cross-posted to:
- worldnews@lemmit.online
A Russian airliner carrying 170 people was forced to crash-land in a field after a hydraulics failure.
No one was injured in the emergency, which left the Ural Airlines Airbus A320 stranded next to a forest in the Novosibirsk region of Siberia.
Ural said the pilot “selected” the landing site after the jet’s hydraulic systems failed while approaching Omsk.
The incident sparked denials from the airline that it was unable to service its planes due to sanctions on Russia.
You must log in or register to comment.
The pilot is a hero. Picking out a field from the air, landing a full plane on it, and not have any injuries is no small feat.
In that area, picking a field is not difficult. There are mostly flat fields, no hills, with occasional forests.
While traveling hundreds of miles an hour and not really knowing the surface conditions of the field. I dont know planes, but I do know fields and those can vary wildly.
Not in that area.
How was he to know that? He’s a pilot, not a farmer.
You try it then
Hold my beer!
Haven’t heard back from em. Likely dead trying to land a plane.
Perhaps we’re beginning to see the effects of spare parts shortage.
Iran deals with a higher rate of airplane accidents because of sanctions so when I saw the title I automatically assumed the same thing.
Absolutely, the plane was cut up completely, to be used for spare parts and scrap, because they can’t repair it.
Everyone on board was desperately trying to think if they ever did anything to offend Putin at any time.
And/or they were looking around for a russian politician/general/etc
Nah, they were safe. Windows on airplanes don’t open, so they couldn’t have possibly fallen out of them.
How are those Aliexpress spare parts working for ya, RuZZia?
Those are impressive canards.
I thought that was some kind of super cool multiple x-wing jet at first glance.
You know what? Fuck you, X-Wings your A320
Russia is lacking spare parts, which is probably why instead of repairing it, they cut it up for scrap and spare parts.
https://youtu.be/H4b25pp_tqU?t=1421
Apparently a plane can’t be repaired after an emergency landing some claim.
Still hilarious that Russia is short of planes, and now cut this one up, because it had to land in a field. 😋
I mean screw russia, but be real.
NO one is repairing and using an airplane frame that has had a crash.
We write off cars for less… you definitely write off an airplane frame that’s had a landing like that, and never certify it for re-use.
Cutting it up to transport it out of there is 100% normal for any nation.
My friend, many, many planes that have been crashed have been serviced and returned to service, including airliners.
OK I thought it would still be usable since it’s standing on the wheels seemingly completely unharmed. After all the emergency landing went extremely well, and all passengers are OK.
Commercial aircraft like airbuses are purpose-built for landing on proper sealed runways, if it’s brought down on soft dirt the engines are filled with dust and debris, the landing gear is damaged as it drags across the field, and the airframe itself could have suffered fractures that won’t become apparent until the hull blows out unexpectedly one day.
It is in one piece but there’s hidden damage to all sorts of things
We X-ray these things all the time.
Many many airliners have slid off runways all the time and reenter service.
For decades Boeing sold a 737 Gravel Kit for their planes to minimize FOD ingest on unimproved surfaces.
http://www.b737.org.uk/unpavedstripkit.htm
The gear didn’t collapse. The damage is probably fairly minimal, including the engines which were probably at idle, and they most likely didn’t use or need thrust reversers.
Not saying it’s a certainty if this happened in the US or EU that it would fly again, but it isn’t impossible.
I will say it’s unlikely because getting it out of a field in one piece is no small task - and probably more expensive than the plane is worth relative to the parts value, but not because of any inherent damage. Just because the engines are the most valuable thing on a plane and much easier to take those off the plane than move the airframe without damaging it more.
OK I see, still a bit hilarious, that while they may be short of planes, they lose them like this.
This is a great example of “it’s expensive to be poor”
On rough ground that would put a lot of stress in the landing system and likely the rest of the plane. Small cracks in things can lead to catastrophic failure later on even if everything looks fine now. Would you want to take a chance on that?
Not to mention they have to get it out of the field. That alone is probably not worth the effort to save a possibly compromised frame.
Would you want to take a chance on that?
I would not. But are you sure about Russia? And even if they just break up the plane for parts, would it really be safe to fly a plane that relies on parts salvaged from this one?
OK I see, still a bit hilarious, that while they may be short of planes, they lose them like this.
Airliners cost around $100 million or more though. If they can, they’re going to be repaired and put back in the service.
Logistically how would they get an airliner from a field back to an airport?
That’s not taking off from the field. The simplest way to get it out of the field is to make it into many small parts.
I’m sure a couple of intrepid Ukrainian farmers with tractors could get the job done before sunset.
I’ve seen some situations like this in Air Crash Investigation, they just did the minimum repairs to get the plane working and had test pilots fly it away.
Yeah, if this isn’t possible, and it’s still in good enough condition to fix and fly, they disassemble the plane and ship it somewhere where it can be reassembled and fixed.
Very unlikely that it’s fixable, though. Only heard of a few cases where it wasn’t more economical to just write it off after a landing like that.
Another factor to consider is how much it’ll cost to actually pull that off, and if it’s not in a very accessible location (like, idk, fucking siberia or something), that adds to the cost of recovery.
Just leave for the nearest place that accepts scrap metal and wait.
Still a bit hilarious, that while they may be short of planes, they lose them like this.
Intereating fact: four years ago, the same airline had to land in a field after some bird strikes.
they were flying over France?
The A320 is fly by wire. Nearly all of the flight controls are operated by the hydraulic systems. A failure of all three hydraulic systems would make this plane incredibly difficult to fly.
A well maintained A320 should never have to ditch due to hydraulic issues, the redundancy makes sure of that. This crash is almost assuredly caused by the sanctions leading to planes dispatching with more inoperative systems than they should have.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
No one was injured in the emergency, which left the Ural Airlines Airbus A320 stranded next to a forest in the Novosibirsk region of Siberia.
Pictures showed the plane stranded in a corn field, its emergency doors open and ramps down, and people milling around.
Sergei Skuratov, the head of Ural Airlines, said that one of the plane’s hydraulic systems failed as it flew to Omsk from Sochi on the Black Sea coast.
He denied that the plane had caught fire, saying apparent scorch marks above one of the wings seen in pictures on social media was “just dirt”.
The emergency landing comes as Russian airlines face difficulty obtaining spare parts due to Western sanctions on Moscow over its offensive in Ukraine.
In March, the Russian media outlet Vedomosti quoted Ural Airlines official Igor Poddubny as saying that it had about three months before they began breaking up planes for parts.
The original article contains 534 words, the summary contains 151 words. Saved 72%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
If they had no hydraulics how did they deploy the landing gear? Can they be hand cranked into position? I really have no clue, just curious.
Landing gears are usually designed to drop by gravity (or manual hand cranking) alone if there’s a hydraulic failure.
@NRoach44 You win again, gravity!
A lot of Airbus’s landing gear has the unique “feature” of being gravity-lowered. So they work without hydraulics.
I’m so jealous they got to take the slides down. I’d pay a lot more extra for an exit row if you got to do that.
I used to work in flight test, and I got to take the slide one time after some emergency exit testing. They are very fun and quite fast in order to get everyone out of the plane quickly. Fun facts about emergency exit slides: they use specialized gasses and packing methods for quick inflation and to fit in the tiniest amount of space possible, so they cost about $70,000 a pop. Also, the end of the slide has a pad that adds extra friction and pops you up onto your feet to keep your momentum even after you exit the slide.
All in all, a 10/10 experience that I would happily do again, provided I was in a non-emergency situation.
I wonder if they let you climb back in for another go?
no chinese knockoff parts yet?
no the chinese are busy discovering the next quantum computer after the semiconductor sanctions
