Four confirmed dead in Moscow air crash

[Bernie P]

We've all seen/heard about the TU-204 this morning, and condolences to those (mainly from the Csech Republic) whom have died...

HERE (http://youtu.be/dWONT47LFZM) is some footage from the motorway where it overran onto...

HERE (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/9770751/Four-confirmed-dead-in-Moscow-air-crash.html) is the story, UK papers

[Sarah C]

That footage is chilling- the occupants in the car were very lucky.

[Mike W]

If that big ditch wasn't beside the motorway....

[Philip Argy]

Initial reports are suggesting brake problems. Is it possible that the a/c was so underweight (no pax or freight) that the tyres couldn't get the assumed grip in the slippery conditions? Perhaps the unusually low weight led to an incorrect autobrake setting?

[Hugh Jarse]

Not really, Philip.

The landing autobrake setting is selected based on a combination of weight, elevation, wind, slope, temperature deviation and thrust reverser/s for a given runway length.

For a given autobrake setting, the system will apply a pre-determined brake energy setting to provide a particular deceleration rate.

The antiskid system should always prevent the brakes from locking (regardless of autobrake setting), based on the traction (or lack thereof) of the individual wheels.

The pilots always have the option of using maximum manual braking, which firstly disengages the autobrake, but will apply maximum brake energy (with antiskid).

The question you need to ask is whether the runway was contaminated (snow/slush/ice). This will increase your landing distance significantly.

I bet this was a factor, Philip.

[Philip Argy]

Maybe a replay of QF1-Bangkok where reverse thrust was overlooked. Or inoperative?

[Nigel C]

Maybe a case of wait for the investigation and see?

[Philip Argy]

No point speculating then, Nige! :)

[Joseph Saragozza.]

If you notice notice carefully in the footage the nose wheel hits the car in front of the car filming and the filming car hits a row of seats.

Rip

[Mick F]

QF1 was a bit more than just overlooking reverse thrust Philip. A combination of factors occurred that created that incident.

Mick

[Philip Argy]

The ATSB found that had reverse thrust been used the QF1 overrun would not have occurred. I agree there were many factors but the then-practised avoidance of reverse thrust was identified as the key factor that led to its lack of use even when required.

[Mick F]

You don't think the CRM issue was just a big of a key factor? After all, that started the chain of events.

[Philip Argy]

My phrase was "key factor" in relation to the overrun. I agreed there were many factors at play, but failure to identify during briefing the potential need for reverse thrust, and then failure to deploy reverse thrust, were key. The ATSB report supports that view.

The post-overrun issues from Bangkok are not relevent to the Moscow crash. My reason for comparing Moscow to Bangkok was that the loss of tyre grip through snow or excess water puts the focus onto the use of reverse thrust. I believe the allusion to be valid.

[Above comments made in relation to the pre-edited version of Mick's last contribution!]