Error, feat, sanctions?

First -class pilot, captain of the aircraft Andrei Litvinov - about the next landing of the Ural Airlines aircraft in the field

On the morning of September 12, the Airbus A320 airliner, which performed the Sochi -Omsk flight, made an emergency emergency landing on the wheat field in the Novosibirsk region. All 167 passengers (including 23 children and 6 crew members) are alive. The former captain of the A-320 aircraft, first-class pilot Andrei Litvinov expresses his opinion about what happened.

The famous pilot of the first class, the former captain of the A-320 aircraft Andrei Litvinov left Aeroflot on a well-deserved rest. But the best expert is almost impossible to find. His credit of trust is incredibly high, he is loved and appreciated, because he always says everything as it is. In particular, his answer to the question: “Is it possible to fly on aircraft of Russian airlines, is it dangerous now or shouldn't you worry?” - I reassured many. Because he said:

“... flight safety is a worked out system for years, it will be observed, despite all the difficulties. Although officially members of the International Aviation College put a red flag on Russian companies due to the fact that they believe that our aviation is unsafe. They think so because we were deprived of the opportunity to update software, to receive original spare parts - it looks like this. But unofficially - well, you understand - all the same, hands and heads are the same, people work. I would say this: now, today, Russian airlines are no more dangerous than foreign ones. Let the passengers not worry and fly calmly ... "

(From the publication “ Airports attack the garbage dumps ”, “New” dated June 14, 2023).

- Andrei, you must admit that it is difficult not to worry and calmly fly after such emergency situations as emergency landing in the field. As soon as information appeared that the plane did not reach the airport due to the refusal of hydraulics, discussions with the highest degree of panic immediately began in social networks: “Here it is, cannibal use of aircraft, here they are, sanctions ...”

- Of course, we need to wait for the results of the investigation of the emergency landing of the Airbus A320 airliner.

In general, the refusal of hydraulics is not uncommon, I looked at the statistics for the first half of 2023: in different airlines in the world, 15 hydraulic systems occurred.

I would not draw a parallel with sanctions here, because in order to understand whether it somehow concerns sanctions or not, you must first get a technical examination: what exactly happened to hydraulics? If there is some kind of counterfeit spare part-then of course, this is connected. And if there is some kind of microcrack that can appear on any plane, then I would not draw a parallel with sanctions.

Precisely because the refusal of hydraulics can occur on any plane, such situations are worked out on simulators during training by all crews once every six months. In training, we were constantly disconnected by hydraulics, and we sat in the strip without it - this is included in the mandatory training program, so there should be no surprise for pilots here. Yes, this is an unpleasant failure, but the pilots should be ready for this.

- And put the plane in the field?

- No, this should not be. In the field, the plane can sit for two reasons: the first - if a fire occurred on the plane that cannot be extinguished. Then the commander decides to land outside the airfield in order not to burn in the air. And the second reason - if two engines refuse: it is impossible to fly, plan and sit in the field. Naturally, the engine failure is possible if fuel is at zero. The pilots of the Ural Airlines did not wait for their empty tanks and the engines stood up-they realized that they would not reach the Novosibirsk Airport, and decided: it is better to choose the site somewhere in the field and sitting down than to collapse where it is not clear where.

- That is, everything was done correctly, from your point of view?

- Correct from the point of view of the final result. But if the commission establishes that the crew has incorrectly calculated fuel, then of course, this is wrong. Because the plane must sit on the airfield, and not in the field!

Without waiting for conclusions, I will say my opinion. I believe that the pilots were still mistaken in the calculations. In case of refusal of hydraulics, fuel consumption increases by 10%. According to preliminary information, they were released sash of the chassis - which means that according to documents, 180%had to be added to the required fuel for the flight in Novosibirsk.

How everything happens: the calculation is clogged into the computer, that is, the flight plan, and it calculates the fuel consumption, the flight time of each point, given the wind, the mass of the aircraft - completely considers everything. But he considers as under normal flight conditions. The computer does not take into account that the chassis are released, that the aircraft refused hydraulics. This means that you need to get a table, it is in electronic form, and with its help to independently calculate all realities, fuel consumption to the airfield. Most likely, they calculated incorrectly. It is very important to wait for the transcript of negotiations in the crew’s cabin and to understand how they solved the problems, they thought - they did not think. This is all recorded, and, having listened, it will already be possible to draw a final conclusion.

- If the pilots calculated everything correctly, could they decide to fly to Novosibirsk?

- No, if they all calculated correctly, they would not have made such a decision. They accurately calculated that when the hydraulics refused, the landing distance increases, and in Omsk a strip is 2500 meters, and it may not be enough. The strip in Novosibirsk allowed such a landing with refusing hydraulics, because it is more - about 3600 meters, and this would be logical if, in addition to calculating planting and distances, there would be correct fuel calculations.

Apparently, during calculations, the pilots simply did not take into account this overspending - from Omsk to Novosibirsk, about 600 km, and they did not reach 193 km, because there was not enough fuel. Two -thirds of the path flew by, 400 km out of 600, and only then realized that they would not have enough fuel to fly to Novosibirsk. And even more so now it will not be enough to return to Omsk - neither there nor there. So the question arose: collapse into the unknown or prepare for landing.

- What would you do in such a situation? Here you have refused hydraulics ...

- I would not fly without fuel to the reserve airfield. The ship commander releases the chassis when preparing for landing. They were preparing for landing, and when they saw the refusal of hydraulics, they asked for a waiting area. This is a normal procedure, and the solution is correct. They become in the waiting area, fly and, meanwhile, analyze their position. First of all, the excess of fuel, because the computer shows it without taking into account the amendments to resistance from the released chassis. And the correct calculation would show that they will not be reached, because the excess of fuel is 25%.

Then it would be necessary to get into the waiting area, use part of the fuel and land in Omsk - after the production of the fuel, they would be enough for them.

The only risk was that they could roll out outside the strip if they were sitting without fuel production - well, they still sat in the field. In Omsk from the strip to the fence that encloses the airfield, there is a lot of space there, so even if they rolled out, nothing terrible would have happened.

- That is, they would not get to the motorway or in the residential area?

- Exactly not. Firstly, they would have rolled out at the end of the strip, when the speed is already extinguished, because the entire strip would be slowed down from the very beginning. And by the way, not even the fact that they would have rolled out. It still depends on the approach: it was necessary to fly lower, try to touch at the very beginning of the strip and brake sharply - thus, they, quite possibly, would even remain in the lane, and if they would have rolled out, it would not be much. In the field where they sat, they swept much more on the ground than if they swept at the airport. And there were many times more risks - there could be ditches and pits in the field, if the wheel fails - the plane can turn over and light up.

At the airport, everything is immediately ready - they would have already been met. That is, if even something happened (for example, a fire), they would immediately put out quickly, because everyone would be ready for this.

- On the Internet there is a lot of delights about what happened: "Wonderful salvation, pilots are heroes!" Continuous applause. But if you imagine, people are flying home from Sochi, that is, for sure, many with a vacation, but get to the wheat field. And there, many said goodbye to life - in social networks they publish touching SMS from passengers to relatives. There are frightened children, someone from the elderly took pressure, someone has fears-two cases of an appeal to an X-ray. Probably, everyone who was on this flight has the whole vacation of the mudwork after such a shock.

- While we are waiting for the results of the investigation, but if it turns out that what happened is the guilt of the crew, then the “Ural airlines” need to pay attention to the preparation of their commanders, because the second time in the field, only in 2019 landed in corn, and now in wheat ... And if again due to the fault of the crew, we already need to make an output.

* - By the way, the pilot Damir Yusupov, who gained popularity after landing the aircraft in the corn field, greeted his colleagues from the Wheat field. He wrote a post on Instagram * (the social network is prohibited in the territory of the Russian Federation): “... * Most importantly - everyone will return home to their loved ones today. There is nothing more valuable than life. For me, this is very exciting news, as he himself survived something similar. I am proud of you, crew! Thank you all! "

- Well, if the Ural Airlines has a criterion that if only everyone was alive, then they need to declare this and make a slogan “alive and point”. Other companies probably think about the convenience of passengers so that they are not running around the fields, but still fly to the airfield. In our professional community, jokes have already appeared that the “Ural airlines” is time to rename into an agricultural assembly ...