When Not Following Procedure Almost Turned Deadly | Exin Co 3589
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 8 апр 2022
- Donations are never expected but appreciated: paypal.me/miniaircrash
Join My Discord: / discord
An Antonov 26B cargo plane sustained substantial damage in a forced landing accident Tallinn-Ülemiste Airport, Estonia following loss of engine power. One of the six occupants was injured.
The flight took off from Helsinki-Vantaa Airport, Finland at 09:46 local time. The flight was uneventful until 10:14 hours, 9.5 nm from Tallinn runway 26. When the power levers were retarded to flight idle the crew noticed engine vibration and smelled a smoke in the cockpit. The engine chip detector indicator in the cockpit was lit. After a short discussion about which engine should be shut down the flight engineer shut down the left engine and the captain tried to start the APU to gain more thrust.
During the approach the air traffic controller noticed the aircraft deviating from the approach path to the left and notified the crew. The crew was unable to maintain a proper approach path both in lateral and vertical dimensions. The attempts to start the APU engine failed. Visual contact with the runway was established 0.5 nm from the threshold. The aircraft crossed the airport boundary being not configured for landing and with an indicated airspeed (IAS) of 295-300 km/h. The flaps were extended for 10° over the threshold; the landing gear was lowered after passing the runway threshold and retracted again.
The aircraft made a high speed low pass over the runway at an altitude of ca 10-15 feet with the landing gear traveling down and up again. Flaps were extended over the runway. At the end of the runway full power on the right engine was selected, and the aircraft climbed 15-20 feet and started turning left. The crew started retracting flaps and lowered the landing gear. The aircraft crossed the highway at the end of the runway at ca 30 feet, then descended again, colliding with treetops at the lake shore and made a crash-landing on the snow and ice-covered lake waterline. Due to the thick ice the aircraft remained on the ice and slid 151 m on the ice with heading 238° before coming to a full stop.
After the impact the flight engineer shoot down the right engine and power and released all engine fire extinguishers. All persons onboard escaped immediately through the main door. No emergency was declared and despite suggestions from first officer, a go-around was not formally commanded.
The airplane gradually sank through the ice after the accident. 
Наука
new episode of plainly difficult, diaster breakdown and mini air crash investigation on the same day NICE
Also MentourPilot posted a new episode today. It's about Linate Airport disaster. I feel like all I've done today is watch YT videos (not that there's anything wrong with doing so).
Also check out Fascinating Horror and The Brew!
I love all 3 shows
Plainly difficult has just descended into chasing the Algorithm
USCSB recently put out a new video as well
My father is a firefighter at Tallinn's airport and he also helped with the rescue operations on that accident.
@@Kettvnen have some respect
@@Kettvnen I wrote this comment in case someone had a question about the rescue operations, and the only attention i get are the likes on my comment.
@@shipbl1 shit, I deeply apologize
That's a very justifiable reason and I was stupid to call you out for that, once again I am REALLY sorry
Was it very risky for the firefighters? I guess your father will ever remember it. Good job protecting the drinking water.
@@camillabrifjord727 He told that the riskiest thing about the whole operation was the fact, that the airplane was on somewhat thin ice, and that made it quite dangerous to work. And the other problem was that the aircraft was sinking. And to prevent it, they put birch logs thru the cockpit windows.
APU questions answered:
Antonov 26 APU is called RU19A-300. In order to provide power on the ramp, it must be on 70% of full power (let’s call it 300 kg of thrust) so yes, there’s a jet engine running and the plane may move if there is no parking brake or chocks, but the parking brake itself can take care of that. You need 90% of power for engine start, and 94% for take off (only then it’s 800 kg of thrust).
Though there’s a flight engineer in the crew, APU start panel is on PIC side, not on flight engineer side, so PIC has to start it which is really hard in the situation like that. It’s just a bad cockpit design.
I believe the crew didn’t want to drop gear and flaps to keep the speed up and to control the plane better with one engine, so the plane doesn’t roll towards the inoperative engine. But definitely there was a situational awareness problem and it seems like they didn’t realize how close to the runway they were.
Personally, I want to add that Antonov 24/26 is a legendary plane. It’s just a bit old (just a bit :) The book performance may not match actual performance because of the engine conditions.
a new info
thank you
It's so weird that going from 70% power to 94% results in thrust going from 300 to 800 kg - almost triple! 😮
Physics....
@@MrNicoJac in that state, any feathering would be inop, the oil which runs it would be clogged by the gunk that was forming in the engine...
APU didn't work ..one engine was operational...they should have safely landed even after go around
@@stanislavkostarnov2157 Even with the worst engine failure, the prop must be feathered. There is a separate feather oil pump that will feather the propeller even in these conditions. Actually, there are three separate systems to feather the prop, including the hydraulic one. It’s impossible to fly this airplane with windmilling prop. I mean it can not fly straight and level with unfeathered prop. It would just crash right after the engine failure basically.
I recently found this channel and I'm absolutely loving it
one of best if not the best and unique
It’s a great channel, it’s developed a lot in its few years , I remember how excited he was at 40k subs
APU (RU-19 is the model name) on An-26 and An-24RVs is thorttleable, it has a third throttle to the right of the main ones on the pedestal, so you can choose whether you want it to provide full power or just idle. Its main purpose is providing electric power on the ground, as well as additional thrust at take-off weight close to maximum, or at hot and high aerodromes.
I flew the AN-26 and we used to use the APU power to aid during all takeoffs, since we were always heavy with cargo.
I can easily see these crew got distracted and lost situational awareness and simply messed up the approach and by not following procedures and their checklists correctly, this was an unfortunate but predictable outcome.
The shortcomings of the AN-26 were for the most part corrected by the introduction of the AN-32.
As always MACI, good topics and good videos👍🏻
Waiting 5 days for a new video feels like an eternity. And great video
Thank you so much!
@@MiniAirCrashInvestigation thx
then support him, i wish i could but am in Yemen the most i can do like share and sub
Love, love, loved this! The most poetic MACI yet! To qualify that, I was of course not referring to the nature of the content, but to the excellent retelling of the narrative. Beautifully written, easy to follow, charming tone and a delight to listen to.❤
I love your channel! You cover a lot of crashes that I never knew about, and so I always learn something new with each video
I love that you cover lesser known stories, thanks for your work!
As I remember An-26 is a cargo version of An-24 passenger plane. You can use it by different tail, flat at the bottom to incorporate loading ramp. All those changes made plane heavier so jet engine was to help with that. I saw 26 many times as it was used by Polish Airforce as cargo and sometimes personel carrier (i live close to military airfield). They alvays used jet engine for take off (you can hear it).
An's-24 in Polish Airlines (LOT) had lot of crashes (forced landings in countryside) due to engine malfunction. So, this suggests that flying that plane with one engine was not so easy and sometimes simply impossible (not enough power etc.). So i am not suprised that heavier version crashed due to one engine malfunction.
I read your comment before I left mine. It is entirely likely that the one engine simply lacked the power for a go around. The engines were old, one failed outright and the remaining one was likely producing less power than it did when new. Add to that the fact that the plane was very close to its maximum weight.
Besided If I remeber the An-24 operating procedures you are actually supposed to start the aux engine before approach at high weight JUST for situations like this
Unfortunately An-24 had serious problems with single engine flight. Crashes due to adverse handling effects in this flight regime happened in the USSR too. Feathering sometimes failed, oil pressure anomalies could cause a propeller to unfeather by itself, and according to official manuals, flight with a failed windmilling (unfeathered) engine is possible in descent only - the drag is just too much. To add the safety margin in case things go south they added the RU-19 auxiliary engine in the -RV variant and the An-26 deriative.
This video is exactly why I love your channel. You cover stuff that I have not heard about. And I have been a airplane/aviation geek for decades. Thank you, again!
Thank you for your service mate. Love the videos, it’s not Saturday without ‘em
I appreciate how you break down events like this into segments that are easy to follow.
I really love your format! You're a great storyteller and I always enjoy your videos! Keep up the great work!
You relate these stories so clearly.
I love how you explain things.
-Technically, it is NOT true that all twin engine planes are designed to fly on only one engine. Some light twins cannot maintain altitude at typical weights on one engine. A good example is the Piper Apache, which only has 150 hp per side. The remaining engine takes you to the scene of the accident...
Airline equipment is required to be able to climb at a 2.6 degree angle after an engine failure at rotation. This is done by leaving weight behind on the ground in order to ensure this performance. Ever had an airline "lose" your luggage? They didn't lose it at all, they left it behind in order to make sure that this required performance is met.
Great video!
They ARE meant to fly on single engine. If they do, is another thing, but no twin is legally impossible to fly on a single engine given the max weight is not exceeded.
Excellent review. Your explanation here makes perfect sense
3:20 "I wonder [...] who got stuck with the bill." lol at the phrasing
okay, this is a nice video of what happened . you have added that you where in a warm bed while making this video, so props to that. what I can add is that no human on earth can possibly know what it is like following a checklist...(for those that don't know, when you have an abnormal parameter or vibration, you use a QRH(quick reference handbook) that will tell you what procedure to follow, in this case you would likely run 3 checklists and then the normal checklist after that...if they where in fact on final approach and they had this abnormal situation it is not uncommon for the crew to do a go around, knowing that there aircraft will fly and climb on one engine...now what makes this video confusing to me is there is a few animations(flightsim) where the aircraft go's around and extends the gear , however you never mention that the crew did this ? that would make a huge difference in flight performance, also then at a stage it just lands on the runway...(please include actually feathering the engine in your videos as this is something real pilots look at, plus it makes it a lot more believable) My point is ..you go around because it is clearly not a stable approach...you add power and the aircraft does not perform like it should. If you have experienced that.. then sure give the crew shit. If have not been in that situation the you would have no idea how that feels to know you are now heading towards certain death. so its very hypocritical to anybody who has not been in that situation to say, hey the crew made a mistake. the visibly was also less than ideal..so all in all I give the crew 10/10 for surviving this accident...Its not as simple as it seems.
Great Job ! Thanks for providing.
Bad bad CRM. They tried to do way too much at once. Their failure to follow the checklists (more than one) is evidence of this. If the pilot wanted the extra boost from the APU (a fine idea), they should have called off the approach, stayed at altitude and focused just on getting the APU online (following the checklist). With that, they would have been able to continue to focusing just on landing the plane.
Good stuff my man. Thank you.
Somehow while being from Estonia, I never heard about this one. Loved the video btw!
They may assert that the plane can be flown on one engine, but, if the engines were getting old and worn, and the plane was very close to its maximum weight, that may not have been true at the time of the crash.
Also the lack of coordination among the crew was probably a reflection of conditions on the ground as well, and the right engine was probably as much of a deathtrap as the left one. It just hadn't gone yet.
Just FYI, in all (modern) aircrafts, the APU is basically a tiny jet engine, as it runs on kerosine.
what i know about apu's they are generators on the planes it self for starting or powering up without engines running for example if ground crew wants to perform checks for plane they turn them on or pilots wants to start the plane, or they can ask for ground generators service from the airport
Excellent video!😸
Really like this channel. Thanks.
I think it was a deliberate act. I love the style.
I was working with the aircraft engineer who was on the board when they crashed. Currently he is working as aircraft mechanic for Polish company Sprint Air , maintaining ATR 72 and Saab 340 flying for DHL.
Your story is not complete, you're missing some real information's what exactly happened and wasn't mentioned officially.
Can you share ? I'm curious.
Always very interesting.
Amazing video!
Yea this was all over then news in Estonia, never knew the details tho becouse i was 8 when it happened. Again great storytelling.
great video
Nice video mate , tho I thought you were going to play the CVR for us, just by the way you spoke ,maybe something for future. Videos , Andrew 🇦🇺
how can a pilot not be able to follow a checklist??? the instructions are right there!!
are you a pilot?
15 steps to start an apu 😂
That was never going to happen at low altitude while descending against your will into fog and dealing with smoke in the cockpit.
Look at Sully if you want to know how check-lists don't always workout in emergencies.
It was a last min thing, don’t judge I hate internet pilots !!!!
i was commenting on how they repeatedly didnt do the checklists right
@@MaybeLiteralJesus no but i can read
FIRST!!!! also I love the video, nice to hear that the oil was cleaned up! also yes those pilots reallly screwed up big. please keep making these!
How about SAy first to watch video
@@andreqsimonsen2370 yes i was that too, i clicked it and it said no views
Amen God Bless Finland Praise God Everyone was safe
Hi, great work. Was it the ball bearing races that were broken, leading to jamming of the ball bearings? Thanks.
140ft per minute?!! That is not a lot. That's "just" above level flight!
So anything affecting the climb will mean negative rate. Flaps? Gear? APU inlet vent drag? Ice?
i agree thats literally less than 2.5ft/sec climb rate
Yeah that's what I thought. I could probably flap my arms and have a higher rate of climb than that lol.
Sounds like a severe lack of maintenance on that thing. The high loading was probably typical as well.
Cool. Regarding being overly harsh on the pilots. Let me add my 2 cents - for example I'm not a doctor, or a surgeon. But if I go in for surgery I certainly expect the doctor to be able to handle any problem that may arise and keep me alive. It is their job, it is what they are trained for, it is what they are paid for. I feel the same way about any professional, if you have the job and you take the money, then you damn well better be able to perform. It is why I also have a problem with canonizing pilots who perform a difficult landing. Why? - It is their job, it is what you should expect of any pilot. No one expects that if the plane breaks you are dead unless you have Sully at the controls
I sympathize with the crew’s decision to start the APU here, since a similar split-section decision to fire up the APU is what saved the Miracle on the Hudson. It ended up being the wrong choice here due to circumstances, but there are places where it was the right choice.
The whole sully thing was a fraud, another false event.
@@billb7876 what do you mean? I'm curious about any info you can tell me about this
@@billb7876 wow, i'd like to see some more evidence with that
The pilots don't need to be that cool. Just coordinate well and share the responsibilities, that's more than enough. If one of the pilot concentrated on bringing the APU online by following the correct procedures, they would've landed safely on the runway itself. Whatever incidents that's mentioned in this video ended quite well is certainly due to the excellent coordination between the pilots.
"or landing on thin ice." No pun intended 🤣
I wonder what was the recovery process for the contaminated water was.
by the way honestly ur videos is unique
not like other boring channels that keep repeating aci episodes as if they well give another info about them that we didnt know about
keep up and wish u best
as always likes, thumbs up and with pleasure subscribe anyone that still didnt do that (wiered if not lol) + share it with friends he deserves it
greetings from Yemen
10:16 or United 232, and they also added in ingenuity too.
What's that instrument under the compass that looks like a very old viewfinder calibrated with angles?
Interesting! Wonder if they even feathered the propeller on the damaged engine.
You can see it feathered in the video so yes
nothing relaxes me more than hearing about people dying due to poorly followed procedures and design flaws
...WTF??!!👀🤯
Questions:
1: on the Antonov 26, can you feather the propellor on a failed engine?
2: if yes, did the pilots do so?
3: if no, how much of an impact did not feathering the propeller make on this crash?
It went “oh my god….., ALL over the ice!”
these guys were on thin ice!
HEY MR AIRCRASH
👍
FYI,when he says coke, he refers to carbon not the forbidden flour
I thought he was talking about the cola… 😆
Bless those Soviets that made the AN-26. The APU simply being a jet engine with 800KG thrust is comical lmao. Overkill af, but I guess it's a genius way of getting extra thrust on take-off from rugged runways?
I dug out the final report for this one and eh, is there any information on the crew, like names, nationality etc elsewhere?
could it climb being almost overloaded?
Oh how lucky and unlucky.
Isn’t the fuel stored in the wings?
But he landed on thick ice.
didnt expect for the plane to take off from my local airport
Under pressure anyone will forget everything out of the book and training.
If pilots receive no periodical training in all possible issues this accident's will keep happening.
This plane wasn't using "jet fuel" as the narrator claims. Being a prop-driven aircraft it was no doubt using high-octane aviation gasoline which is much more volatile than fuel-grade kerosene.
Saw the wreck of this one at TLL a few years ago.
For Some Time Now, It Has Been Known That an Accident Involves Several Factors.
Despite the Pilots' Misconduct, They Share the Responsibility with the Company,
Because, Without a Doubt, It Is Who Must Guarantee a Good Training and, of Course !,
The Awareness and Commitment of All Your Pilots To Follow, As Strictly As Possible, “TO FLY LIKE YOU TRAIN" !
That Is, If The Pilots Failed, The Company Also Failed to Provide Adequate Training or Assessment.
However, It's Not Just Training and Rigorous Charges, Everything Must Have Balance !
Take a Look At, For Example, The Two Impressive "Almost" Catastrophic Accidents Suffered by Emirats in December 2021 and January 2022.
There Has To Be Balance, As In Aircraft’s Performance !
Why didn't they consider a restart of the other engine?
When stuff like this happens, do the pilots lose their jobs or whaz happens?
I wonder if the fact that the landing gear was down when the pilots attempted a go around made a difference? If the had retracted the gear, the plane may have been able to gain altitude instead of sinking.
the description indicates that the landing gear was lowered after the runway threshold was passed, but retracted again afterwards
As my Dad told me when I saw an overloaded AN12 taking of at FALA and I remarked that it was smoking... It's an Antonov... if it's not smoking, something is wrong.
🔥Might have been worst thing and would've wrecked air crash investigation...but I woulda torched it. Yah it'll sink but that's easiest way get rid of kerosene. Floats so you'd get most of it. 🔥
i have seen that plane on ice=)
During the Cold War Helsinki and Tallinn were on the separate side of the Iron Curtain. If that had happened then, the inhabitants of Tallinn just would had drank the contaminated water.
Edit: The ball bearings of the engines seem to be a trend causing damages to the soviet build engines. Referring to the accident of LOT Polish Airlines Flight 5055.
what? why?
I watched this wondering what might have happened if the crash had occurred in summer, not winter, when there was no ice on the lake....could have been worse I think, especially if plane had sunk
They might not even have the performance to climb away from the runway during the go around and probably just crashed on site at the airport somewhere.
Over the last few months my favourite sentence has become .. 'This, is the story of ...'
I hadn't quite appreciated you were in bed though 😉
Sounds like a bad case of complacency.
3:56 full of what?
This is why its important to randomly drug test ur engines. U never know if ur engine is a coke addict
Apparently not this crew.
Aren’t most APUs turbine engines?
I know this comment is out of place, however I hope it is read by people in the aviation industry, because I worry about noone thinking about what would happen with aircrafts in a huge radius, because of the EMP from a possible Russian nuclear attack on Ukraine.
Because no jet airliners except those special ones that are rebuilt and hardened for military purposes, are tested and guaranteed to withstand the EMP that will reach far beyond Ukraines border at high altitude.
Such an attack will be extremely devastating for those on the ground of course, and most lifes will be lost there. However - additional lifes will be lost
by a possibly high number of aircrafts being partly or completely disabled or needing to do an emergency landing at the same time.
Even worse, the impact on all those civilian aircrafts could be counted as an attack on NATO members, meaning that what "just" was intended as
a tactical nuclear strike inside Ukraine, may escalate to an all out nuclear war, because of the unintended consequences - and I see no articles or any
information about what would happen with civilian aviation, if even one atomic bomb is detonated, as there have been no nuclear tests near civilian aircrafts in the air, because these tests happened far away, testing military equipment, vehicles, ships, perhaps some aircrafts, but no civilian aircrafts.
And as we see from Russias extremely wreckless actions in Chernobyl, there is no reason to believe Russia has thought well through what would happen with all those aircrafts, even when being well outside Ukraine, that still are within reach of the EMP and serious risk of being disabled, making even a "tactical" strike, something that could very well trigger the doomsday.
🙂
Wow, 140fpm is extremely marginal performance, even if you do everything perfectly.
I know it’s technically pilot error, but the aircraft performance doesn’t exactly seem ideal either.
yup POS plane barely works on a good day with a stong breeze ;)
It has to fly and land on one engine. It doesn't have to be able to take off on one engine.
Assuming the 2nd engine was generating full rated power and aircraft weight was as published... Which it never often is
given the lack of maintenance on the failed engine I'm doubt the remaining engine was perming up to spec
Did I miss this video ?
Wow that’s a weak plane weight tolerance wise.
THIS IS WHY i think GREAT pilots are GODS AMONG HUMANS, they are like good brain surgeons, AND PILOTS WHO are just ''so - so'' ....are often the problem ,when procedures become convoluted
Sooo,
Time to remove all pilots from the cockpit since the kill half of all passengers?
Did you say "coke"?
✨👏👏👏👏😉👍✨
The pilot definitely blundered. But at least this time, everyone escaped with their lives, so he has that going for him.
Might be argued that the pilot kept his cool by landing on a frozen lake as opposed to downtown Tailinn
Bad example. Landing on a runway or thin ice and talking about the hudson plane
Why not do the circling for 25? instead of landing with a tailwind while heavy. Or Too heavy for the 180 circling turn? Just widen the distance on downwind to use only 30 degree banks only.. It is high VFR. Too difficult to do a 180 turn at 1,000 agl? Gee. Some airline pilots can only do mild turns and mild straight in approaches. See the results..
6 people or about 6 people
A cargo AN26 also crashed at Cox's Bazar (Bangladesh) in 2018 due to an engine failure on take off, the crash occurred because subsequent actions from the crew were not part of SOP's
There was fog at the departure airport, the crew should have continued to their alternate airport about 50nm away, but they persisted for a landing in fog, and during their subsequent go-around, with the aircraft STILL configured in landing configuration, FULL flap gear down, resulted in loss of control and a single engine full power impact in to shallow water
It was not a pretty sight at all.......
Fourth 🔥🔥🔥
Sixth in this case
@@Teubrasil_77 test
@@athalyerajan2823 wdym by test
Hey man, when you say coke, what do you mean? I'm assuming neither cola nor cocaine
Huh, how fitting this is about a Russian built aircraft during this time period
Soviet built, polish cargo airline not sure if this aircraft was post soviet built though and remember antonov is now a Ukrainian company
@@jameswg13 good point