Why airplane flaps don't work. “They gave us takeoff mode, but forgot to remove the flaps. The plane went into a tailspin. What are flaps for and what could happen to them?

The plane's flaps could have caused the Tu-154 crash on December 25 near Sochi. This version was put forward by experts after deciphering the data from one of the black boxes.

Airplane flaps: what they are for, photo, why they are needed during takeoff and landing

The cause of the Tu-154 crash in Sochi could have been flaps. According to a preliminary analysis of data obtained from one of the black boxes, the development of an emergency situation on board could begin with the flaps not being retracted for some reason.

Trying to compensate for the resulting diving moment, the pilots aggravated the situation to a critical level by raising the nose of the plane excessively.

As Life reports, citing a source close to the investigation, experts were able to decipher the recording from the voice flight recorder without any problems. According to him, the conversation is interrupted by one of the pilots exclaiming: “Flaps, s...a!” Then a cry sounds: “Commander, we are falling!”

- Speed ​​300... (Inaudible)
— (Inaudible)
— I took the racks, commander.
— (Inaudible)
- Wow, oh my!
(A sharp signal sounds)
- Flaps, s...a, what the f***!
- Altimeter!
- We... (Inaudible)
(The proximity alarm sounds)
— (Inaudible)
- Commander, we are falling!

What are airplane flaps for, photo

Flaps are called wing mechanization elements. When retracted, they are a continuation of the wing surface. When released, they move away from it to form cracks. Flaps are needed to improve the load-bearing capacity of the wing during climb or takeoff/landing. They are also needed when flying at low altitudes.

When the flaps are extended, the curvature of the profile increases, which allows aircraft to fly without stalling at low speeds. The Tu-154M uses double-slot flaps, while the Tu-154B uses three-slot flaps. The flaps can be released either automatically or at the command of the pilots from the cockpit.

According to preliminary data, the flaps on board operated inconsistently; as a result of their failure to release, the lifting force was lost, the speed was not sufficient to gain altitude, and the plane crashed.

Official data on the transcript of the recordings has not yet been published.

Flaps photo

Let us recall that on December 25 at 01:38 Moscow time, the Russian Ministry of Defense Tu-154 plane took off from the Chkalovsky airfield in the Moscow region and was heading to the Khmeimim airbase in Syrian Latakia.

In Sochi, the aircraft stopped for refueling, which was not known in advance. At 05:27 Moscow time, the plane disappeared from radar a few minutes after taking off from Adler airport. Later it became known that the liner fell in the Black Sea near the Sochi coast.

There were 92 people on board the aircraft, all of them died.

Among the victims of the disaster are 64 employees of the Alexandrov Song and Dance Ensemble and its director Valery Khalilov, three film crews, doctor Elizaveta Glinka, who was transporting medicines to Syria, as well as Director of the Department of Culture of the Ministry of Defense Anton Gubankov and crew members.

On Tuesday, the main “black box” of the Tu-154 that crashed in Sochi was delivered to Moscow. The Life publication published a transcript, the authenticity of which was not officially confirmed, but it followed from it that the crew had problems with the flaps. And an Interfax source, in turn, said that the Tu-154 could have crashed due to a “stall” with insufficient wing lift for takeoff.

“According to preliminary data, the flaps on board operated inconsistently, as a result of their failure to release, the lifting force was lost, the speed was not sufficient to gain altitude, and the plane crashed,” said a source at the operational headquarters for work at the scene.

Novaya Gazeta asked experts to comment on the version with flaps.

Andrey Litvinov

1st class pilot, Aeroflot

— Flaps are very critical. We ( pilots — ed.) at the very beginning they assumed that these were flaps - as soon as it became clear that it was not fuel or weather. There were several versions - technical, pilot error. But it can be both. A technical problem resulted in a pilot error.

Flaps are needed only for takeoff and landing - the wing area increases, the lifting force increases, therefore, the plane needs a shorter takeoff distance than without flaps. You take off with the flaps, gain altitude, and the flaps retract. But they may not clean up if something is broken, or they may not clean up synchronously - one is faster, the other is slower. If they don’t clean up at all, it’s not a big deal; the plane flies on and on. He doesn't go into a dive. The commander simply reports to the ground that he has such a technical problem, returns to the airfield and lands - with the flaps extended, as required during a normal landing. And engineers are already figuring out what the problem is.

But if they are removed asynchronously, then the plane crashes, that’s what’s scary. On one plane of the wing the lift force becomes greater than on the second, and the plane begins to roll and, as a result, falls on its side. If the plane falls over, dives, and begins to lower its nose, the crew instinctively begins to pull the yoke towards themselves and increase the engine speed - this is absolutely normal. But the pilot must control the spatial position of the aircraft.
There is a concept - supercritical angle of attack. This is the angle at which air begins to escape from the wing. The wing becomes at a certain angle, its upper part is not flown around by air, and the plane begins to fall, because nothing is holding it in the air.

I flew the TU-154 for 8 years. I had no problems with the flaps, there were minor failures, nothing serious. It was a good reliable plane in its time. But that was 25 years ago. This is a product of its time. Aeroflot has all new planes - we fly Airbuses and Boeings. And the Ministry of Defense flies the TU-154. Yes, you need to make your own planes, yes, but at least let them take a superjet. Modern aircraft have a lot of protection systems; it is actually a flying computer. If some situation happens, the automation prevents the plane from stalling, which helps the pilot a lot. These same planes are all in manual mode, all in manual control. But this does not mean that it should fall, it must be technically sound. It must undergo maintenance. A question for the technicians is why such a serious breakdown occurred on this plane. Anyone can make a mistake. The crew does have experience, but military pilots generally don’t fly much. A military pilot flies 150 hours a year. And civilian - 90 hours per month.

Surprise could also have worked, they did not expect such a development of events, they did not have enough reaction to cope. This does not mean that they are inexperienced. Don't forget that the time was 5 am. Just sleep, the body is relaxed, the reaction is initially inhibited. We have been saying for a long time that we should ban night flights or reduce them to a minimum, we should strive to fly during the day, this is what many European companies do.

You also need to remember that the plane was heavy, the fuel tanks, cargo, and passengers were full. There was little time to make a decision. They didn't have time. This situation, of course, must be worked out. I don’t know how the army trains pilots, but here at Aeroflot it is being worked on. There is an algorithm of actions for every emergency situation. Everything is endlessly practiced on the simulator. Did this crew go to the simulator when? If you were on the simulator, did you practice specific flap exercises? We are waiting for answers from the investigation.

Source close to the investigation

— Now the entire technical investigation is being conducted by the Ministry of Defense. This is a military aircraft - the Air Force Institute in Lyubertsy is engaged in deciphering the recorders, and all the recorders, units, systems were transported to Lyubertsy. Flaps are not a critical situation, but in principle a controlled and manageable situation. There is an algorithm for actions in case of desynchronization or incorrect position of the flaps. Pilots are trained in everything, including in simulators; for every emergency, the flight crew practices how to behave, how to control the aircraft. Each aircraft has its own specifics; algorithms have been developed for the Tu-154. It can be assumed that there are a combination of technical problems and human factor, but there is still not enough information.

Vadim Lukashevich

Independent aviation expert, candidate technical sciences

— Failure to retract the flaps is not a disaster. This is a very unpleasant event, but nothing bad should happen from it. And in my opinion, a combination of circumstances and the actions of the crew led to the disaster in the Black Sea.

The essence of airplane flaps is to increase the lift of the wing at low speeds. How a wing works - the higher the speed, the greater the lift. But when the plane takes off, the speed is still low, the same as during landing. And in order to prevent the lift force from decreasing when the speed drops, the flaps in question are extended. You also need to understand that during takeoff the flaps do not extend as much as during landing. When the aircraft is taxiing on the runway, the flaps are already extended, and at the moment of takeoff, the landing gear is sequentially retracted, braking the aircraft, and after 15-20 seconds the flaps are also retracted, hindering the plane as its speed increases. In addition to lifting force, they also create additional air resistance and an additional diving moment - when the plane “wants” to lower its nose.

What happened at the time of the disaster? A heavy, loaded plane, filled with fuel, takes off, the pilots retract the flaps, but for some reason this does not work. In theory, you can continue the flight normally and in this state, without picking up speed, you can turn around and land to fix the problem. It is possible to land with the flaps in this position, but the landing speed will be higher and it will not be very easy. But obviously there was no such solution here. Perhaps the problem with the flaps was not noticed right away, and when the plane began to lower its nose, perhaps the words deciphered from the recorder were spoken.

The on-board equipment of the Tu-154 aircraft of the Russian Ministry of Defense was operating abnormally, Russian Transport Minister Maxim Sokolov reported. According to the investigation, the last flight of the plane lasted about 70 seconds, during which time the airliner rose to a height of 250 meters at a speed of 360-370 kilometers per hour.According to the minister, the first data from the examinations may appear in January, and final conclusions about the causes of the disaster will be made after the black boxes are deciphered.According to a preliminary analysis of the data, the reason for the development of an emergency situation on board was a problem with the flaps.

The main versions of the crash were commented for The Insider by an independent aviation expert, ex-designer of the Sukhoi Design Bureau, Vadim Lukashevich.

Version 1: failure of flaps or speed-sensing instruments

Technically, the version with flaps is flawless, unfortunately, such problemsnot very often, but they happen. INIn this case, most likely the flaps were not retracted; this is a very unpleasant situation, but not a disaster. And that is why, probably, the pilots did not perceive what was happening as something extraordinary and did not sound the alarm.

Before takeoff, the flaps on the right and left wings extend; they serve to increase the lift of the wing at low speed. After the aircraft lifts off, the landing gear is first retracted, and then after 15-20 seconds the retraction of the wing mechanization, including the flaps, begins. The speed increases, and as it increases, the lift also increases, and the flaps create both drag and a diving moment.

That is, as the speed increases, if the flaps are not removed, the plane tries to lower its nose. The following happens: on takeoff, the plane picks up speed, the pilots begin to retract the flaps, but for some reason they do not retract. The retraction is synchronized - this is very important, because they must either be retracted or released in some position, but always on the right and left wings, otherwise one wing will have more lift than the other, and the plane will simply capsize.

Suppose some kind of malfunction occurs, the flaps do not retract, and this is a completely solvable situation, because you can fix in this position, not increase speed, and try to turn around, approach and land. The plane also lands with the flaps extended, and they are extended even further to move into the landing position. If the pilots immediately decided to land, then the flaps would not have to be retracted.

Obviously, the situation developed very quickly, the crew had no reserve either in speed or altitude, and since the plane began to lower its nose as the speed increased, the pilots could take the helm, thereby increasing the angle of attack, and reach its supercritical angle and stalling. The plane crashed, sank backwards and hit the water with its side.

The fact is that the lift of a wing occurs at very small angles of attack - this is the angle between the longitudinal axis of the wing section and the oncoming air flow. The angle is small, a few degrees. Moreover, as this angle increases, the lift force first grows almost linearly, and after a certain value, called the critical angle of attack, it practically disappears, falling to zero. That is, the wing stops flowing around the air as intended, the flow stalls and that’s it, the plane fails. They could just jump out at that critical angle of attack. For aircraft of this type, this is approximately 11, 12, 13 degrees - this must be looked at specifically according to the documentation.

There is an alarm in the cockpit that warns the pilot that he is approaching a critical angle of attack and an audible alarm; in this situation the plane begins to behave very badly. Shaking begins due to the disruption of the flow from the wing, and the plane warns that things will get worse. Perhaps the situation was developing quickly, and the pilots automatically instinctively pulled the yoke towards themselves so as not to lower the nose.

There is another option - the ground speed is also determined by the pressure of the oncoming air, and if this system was faulty or malfunctioning, then the pilots, flying by instruments, could inadequately perceive the current speed of the aircraft.

The pilots could be confident that the speed of the aircraft was greater than it was, and simply raised the nose, believing that it was enough.

They may have been confident that the speed of the aircraft was greater than it was, and simply raised the nose, believing that it was enough. But in fact, the speed is small, so this flow arises, and they sink and hit the surface of the water. Thus, either the pilots were simply correcting the situation, or they were confident that they had a speed reserve.

Problems with flaps occur on this type of aircraft, and in aviation in general. The more properly the aircraft is maintained, the less likely such cases are. TOUnfortunately, if this version is true, then all these people died due to an unfortunate combination of circumstances.

That is, first a technical problem arose, and it was superimposed by the incorrect actions of the pilots. In aviation accidents, various factors are superimposed on one another, and each of them individually does not lead to a disaster. Here we must not forget that this was the pilots’ second night flight: they took off from Chkalovsk, spent two and a half hours in the air, then landed at Adler airport - not the easiest airport, refueled there and flew again.

It is necessary to understand whether the instruments worked correctly or whether it was purely a mistake by the pilots. It is necessary to check the readings from the parametric recorder, which recorded several dozen flight parameters - how the systems worked and so on. MIt could happen that there was not enough engine thrust, this is another factor that could overlap. At least the plane took off normally, and there was no information about engine failure. A problem with the flaps, that is, a technical problem, was the trigger for further development events.

Version 2: crew members mistakenly retracted the flaps instead of the landing gear:

Until now, we have talked about one of the possible scenarios - it was a technical reason related to the flaps: they remained in their take-off position, when the plane gained speed, a diving moment began to arise, the pilots pulled the control wheel towards themselves, reached a critical angle of attack, the plane sank and fell.

But the fact is that all our reasoning is based on the transcript of the voice recorder published by the Life channel (and the authenticity of which is not obvious), on the recording the pilots allegedly shouted: “flaps!”, and then an audible alarm sounded indicating that the angle of attack was exceeded, and the last cry was: “Commander, we are falling.”

That cry of “flaps!” (if it took place at all) can be interpreted differently: the pilots made a grave mistake, and the flaps were removed together with the landing gear.

What usually happens: when the plane rolls out, it begins to take off along the runway - the flaps are extended to the takeoff position. Then the brakes are released, the engines are turned on to maximum thrust, the plane takes off, and upon reaching a certain speed, the commander decides to take off and takes the helm.

First the front strut comes off, then the main struts, and the plane lifts off the runway. It takes off, and literally immediately, after 3-5 seconds, the landing gear retracts. The landing gear should be retracted somewhere after the aircraft reaches an altitude of 100-120 meters. And then it flies with a climb, and 30 seconds after lifting off from the runway at an altitude of several hundred meters, the flaps begin to interfere and their retraction begins.

The sequence of actions of the crew during takeoff is as follows: first, immediately after lifting off from the runway, the landing gear is retracted, and then, after some time, 20-40 seconds, the wing mechanization begins to retract and the flaps are retracted.

The flaps that hang behind the wing are removed, and at the same time on the Tu-154 the slats are a small surface on the leading edge. At the same time, the stabilizer, a horizontal small wing at the very tail at the top of the fin, moves from the takeoff and landing position to the normal one. Another important point: the landing gear retracts quite quickly, in 3-5 seconds, hydraulic drives and cylinders work, and the wing mechanization, including flaps, retracts for a longer time, about 15-20 seconds.

And the problem is that in the cockpit, the landing gear retraction and flap retraction handles are located close to each other: landing gear retraction - this handle is located on the top panel above the right pilot, and the flap retraction or extension handle is also located on the top panel, but between the pilots, that is, on the center console between them. Thus, the co-pilot is responsible for the landing gear, and both pilots can reach the flap lever, but with different hands.

Even though the levers are located next to each other, they have different shapes, and in order to retract the landing gear or flaps, you need to move these handles differently.

Even though the levers are located next to each other, they have different shapes, and in order to retract the landing gear or flaps, you need to move these handles differently. However, they are close to each other, and novice pilots sometimes make mistakes. Experienced pilots, of course, don’t make such mistakes, but, as they say, even an old woman can screw up. This is a gross mistake, but we cannot rule it out.

If we assume that the crew, the co-pilot, or one of them mistakenly removed the flaps instead of the landing gear, then theoretically the picture is similar to what happened next: the plane accelerates, takes off from the runway, 5 seconds of flight pass, and the landing gear needs to be retracted. At this moment, the crew retracts the flaps instead of the landing gear.They are not removed immediately, so the crew cannot immediately understand that something is going wrong. 15 seconds pass, maybe even 20 - something is buzzing, and there is an illusion that the flaps are slowly retracting. Having given the command to retract the flaps, thinking that they are retracting the landing gear, within 15 seconds the crew begins to realize that there is a problem. They cannot gain altitude because they lack lift. Also, the unretracted landing gear dangles below and slows down the plane, that is, the lift of the wing has dropped, and the resistance has not disappeared. And then the plane begins to sag.

We assume that they had only two minutes from receiving permission to take off. 3-4 seconds pass, they release the plane from the brakes, run along the runway for 30 seconds, take off for another 5 seconds, then begin to retract the flaps instead of the landing gear, this happens for another 15 seconds.

They begin to understand what is happening to them literally a minute from the moment they are allowed to take off, that is, after half of these two minutes that they are allotted to the end.Moreover, it is night, there is no visual contact with the horizon, they fly by instruments, by sensations. And when they realize that there is a problem, that the plane is not gaining altitude, they spend some more time understanding the situation. And now they understand thatinstead of the landing gear, the flaps were removed, and the phrase sounds: “Damn, flaps!” Its meaning is not thatThey are not removed, but the fact is that they simply are not there. INthis moment, obviously, they begin to try them again.

The flaps are released in exactly the same way, in the reverse order, but for the same 15 seconds, and while they are not released, the lift of the wing does not increase, and the plane falls. They sag and, trying to somehow increase the lift of the wing, pull the steering wheel towards themselves, reach supercritical angles of attack, an audible alarm sounds in the cockpit, and they fall.

We are not participating in the investigation, we are not examining the wreckage, we do not know what is happening there in Sochi, but some part of the information still comes to us from the media. When they pulled out the chassis from the bottom with a floating crane late the day before yesterday, it was clear that the chassis was not locked. The fact is that the position of the chassis is always fixed with locks.There are locks in the retracted position, and there are locks in the released position. The latter secure the landing gear when parked and during taxiing so that it does not collapse and the plane does not fall on its belly. And in flight they are also fixed, because the landing gear is a heavy thing with wheels, and the plane rolls in flight, raises the tail, lowers it, it dangles, if the landing gear is not fixed inside the niche, they will swing there and hit the walls, the ceiling .

The video that was shown to us on TV shows that the landing gear was not locked in the retracted position - this is, firstly, and, secondly, the landing gear niche flaps were missing. This suggests that the landing gear was extended at the time of impact with the water.

The landing gear was not locked in the retracted position and there were no doors; with a strong impact on the surface of the water, the open racks simply tear off.

There were no doors; with a strong impact on the surface of the water, the open racks simply tear off. The video, of course, is of poor quality, correspondents are not allowed into the place, but what is visible can be interpreted this way: at the moment of impact with the water, the landing gear was released. There is also a photograph of part of the wing being raised with flaps, it shows that the flaps have been retracted.

It turns out that the plane, 2 minutes after the start of the takeoff run, has landing gear that is not locked in the retracted position, and a fragment of the flap shows that they are already folded, but it should be the other way around - wThe landing gear must be locked in the retracted position, and the flaps must not be fully retracted, but fully or partially extended.

I would like to emphasize that the photo is not of very high quality, the video is even worse, but still. This, of course, is a gross mistake by the crew, I don’t want to believe it, but the phrase: “Flaps,” said by the pilots, confirms this mistake.Clarity will come when the parametric recorder is deciphered, whether there was a command to retract the flaps, and, if so, in what position they were.

According to the information that appeared today, it is also clear that there is damage to the fan blades on the right engine, it is said that it is not a bird. But I think that this is damage from hitting the water, because otherwise we would have to assume that the plane took off with bent fan blades from Chkalovsk. This is generally something outrageous, the plane, as we were told, was carefully inspected before taking off from Chkalovsk,he took off and flew for 3 hours to Sochi, and there were no problems.

I think the damage occurred when it hit the water, which means the plane was listing to starboard. This suggests that either the pilots were trying to somehow dodge, maneuver at the last moment, or there was a problem with the synchronization of retracting the flaps (see Version 1). If there was a roll to the right side, it means that the flaps on the left wing were extended more strongly than on the right - the left wing had more lift and the plane tipped over to the right side.

_________________________________________________________________________________________

— Who is responsible for technical problems on airplanes? military aviation?

— The operating organization is responsible for the maintenance of military aircraft. In this case, routine maintenance is carried out by its forces, and repairs are carried out by specialized enterprises that repair aircraft - the rules are the same for military aircraft and for civilian ones.

— The plane broke into more than 1,500 fragments - is this possible when it hits the water?

“We must understand that water in such a situation is no different from concrete, and the area where the debris fell—500 meters—corresponds to the situation. But we don’t know what happened next: the plane hits its tail, the tail breaks off, then what remains after the break-off could tumble and fly apart.

check whether he is lying or not. In general, the media first reported that the bodies were wearing life jackets, and then that they were not. They said that the landing gear was lying separate from the wreckage, which led to the conclusion that the plane fell into the sea and the landing gear onto the shore, and today I read that a floating crane lifted the landing gear from the seabed. Therefore, when a person told reporters that he saw something at half past five in the morning, it is necessary to check this information - now it is difficult to comment on it.

— Some experts say that the plane was too old.

— The assigned resource for this type of aircraft is 35 years of service and 60 thousand flight hours. He served for 33 years and flew less than 7 thousand hours. That is, in terms of resource consumption, wear and tear of parts, he spent only 11% of it, and in terms of service life, 33 years out of the allowed 35. This suggests that the car stood on the ground more than it flew. That is, suppose you bought a car and drive it once a month, and consider whether it is new or not - if you maintain it normally, then most likely yes. The main thing here is that the flight life in terms of the number of flight hours has been used up little, this is a completely normal aircraft, if it is maintained and treated normally, it could still fly and fly.

The parametric flight recorder of the Tu-154 that crashed near Sochi has been preserved in excellent condition, and specialists are preparing to lay out fragments of the aircraft collected at the bottom of the Black Sea. The media, with reference to the transcript of the voice recorder, put forward various versions of the reasons for the crash of the airliner. Experienced pilots interviewed by Gazeta.Ru are inclined to believe that the plane is out of balance, possibly due to incorrect distribution of passengers in the cabin.

The second flight recorder of the crashed Tu-154 aircraft was preserved in excellent condition. At least, this is how his condition was assessed during the initial examination. This was announced on Wednesday on the Rossiya 24 TV channel by Dmitry Popov, senior engineer of the disaster investigation commission.

“The condition in appearance is excellent - the thermal insulation and armor protection are slightly damaged. Even the fact that the handles are in place is the first sign that, probably, if there was no exposure to salt water, then the magnetic tape should be in excellent condition,” the specialist said.

He clarified that we are talking about a parametric recorder, which was installed in the tail of the aircraft. This device, like the first discovered “black box”, will be delivered to the Air Force in Lyubertsy near Moscow.

In addition, in the coming hours it is planned to begin laying out fragments of the crashed plane in Sochi. To clarify the circumstances of the disaster on the ground, the real contour of the Tu-154 will be outlined, for which a site is already being prepared, sources in law enforcement agencies told TASS.

Earlier, the agency's source reported that during the search operation more than 1.5 thousand fragments and debris of the aircraft were discovered, about a third of which - about 570 - had already been raised to the surface.

- ...Speed ​​300... (Inaudible.)

- (Inaudible.)

I took the racks, commander.

- (Inaudible.)

Wow, oh my!

(A sharp signal sounds.)

Flaps, s...ah, what the *****!

Altimeter!

We... (Inaudible.)

(A signal sounds about a dangerous approach to the ground.)

- (Inaudible.)

Commander, we are falling!

The head of the flight test center of the Research Institute doubts the authenticity of this dialogue civil aviation, Tu-154 tester, hero of Russia Ruben Yesayan.

“On the Tu-154 plane, no one says “took the landing gear” or “took the struts.”

After takeoff at an altitude of at least 10 meters, the commander gives the command to “retract the landing gear.” The landing gear valve is closest to the co-pilot. The co-pilot takes this crane, understands, an alarm immediately goes off, the sign that the landing gear is down goes out, and then the sign that the landing gear is retracted lights up. All. So all these dialogues are inventions of some writers,” Yesayan insists.

According to him, the flaps on the Tu-154 aircraft are part of the control system, and all aircraft control systems have double and sometimes triple redundancy. If any failure occurs, the backup systems will work. “Refusal - and everything turned off and was cut off... This doesn’t happen in aviation.

And if the pilot allegedly shouted “Commander, flaps!” - this does not mean that they were the reason,” the test pilot concluded.

An experienced Tu-154 pilot, who wished not to give his name, told Gazeta.Ru his version of what could have happened to the plane.

According to the specialist, the landing gear is retracted when the aircraft takes off at an altitude of 15-20 meters. At this moment, a slight re-centering of the aircraft occurs, which is removed by a trimmer - a compensating device. In the Tu-154, this is a trim effect mechanism (MET), which adjusts the tension in the spring system, keeping the steering column from deviations. To control the MET, switches are used on the steering wheel handles, when turned on, the steering column smoothly moves to the position specified by the pilot.

At an altitude of 100 m and at a speed of approximately 400 km/h, the flaps are retracted during takeoff at 25 degrees. This operation is carried out by a flight engineer. He can stop it at any time, especially in cases where the retraction of the flaps is not synchronized.

When retracting the flaps, the pilot feels a pulling force on the control wheel as the aircraft's lift decreases. These efforts are also countered by trimming so that the plane does not “hang on your hands.” With an increase in speed and an increase in lift, on the contrary, pressing forces arise on the steering wheel, which are removed by the “recoil of the trimmer.”

“If the commander shouted “Flaps!”, then it is quite possible that such pressing forces arose at the helm that the ship’s commander could no longer counteract by trimming,” explains the pilot.

As the interlocutor of Gazeta.Ru suggested, perhaps the alignment of the plane was still disturbed. “Why didn’t this have an effect during takeoff in Chkalovsky and landing in Adler? Then, quite possibly, all the passengers were placed closer to the nose of the plane, and already in Adler they were seated as they wished.

The flight engineer simply did not wake them up and move them closer to the nose. It is possible that this was quite enough to create a rear alignment of the aircraft and catastrophic consequences,” explained the pilot.

He recalled that this is how the Tu-104 with the command crashed Pacific Fleet in 1981 in Leningrad.

Then, according to the version of Lieutenant General, honored military pilot and former commander of the Air Force and Air Defense of the Baltic Fleet Viktor Sokerin, which he told in the Independent Military Review, the commander of the Pacific Fleet, who arrived “very out of sorts”, wanted to fly in his cabin in the front part of the plane by oneself. About a dozen people were put in the “tail”, although it was necessary to do everything exactly the opposite, and then return to their places only after takeoff.

The crew commander expected that he would be able to lift the car off the runway at a slight angle at a speed higher than the calculated one with the maximum maximum permissible deviation, but rolls of paper rolling down the aisle after the start of the take-off run led to the alignment going beyond critical limits, and the car lost control.

“An airplane is a “pharmaceutical scale”, the rocker of which rests on a certain conventional bar, very small in width.

And it (the rocker) is parallel to the ground (and does not fall) only if there are approximately equal masses on both sides of the scale. Bar width in in this example and there is an allowed “gap” between the maximum front and maximum rear alignments,” Sokerin wrote.

Gazeta.Ru's interlocutor, who is familiar with the preliminary results of the investigation, refused to talk about versions of the disaster, but clarified that in principle there was no overload of the Tu-154, as well as heavy cargo on board. According to him, except musical instruments and a small number of boxes with humanitarian cargo that philanthropist Elizaveta Glinka took with her, there was nothing on the plane.

“As has always been the case, the best were selected and got there, and I think that will be the case,” the minister said.

On Wednesday it became known that Russian President Vladimir Putin changed the format of the traditional New Year's reception in the Kremlin after the crash of the Tu-154. “You know what happened here, what a tragedy it was recently. Therefore, I want to change the traditional reception in honor of the New Year so that it is of a working nature,” RIA Novosti quotes Putin as saying.

On the Tu-154 military transport aircraft, which was heading to Syria from the Chkalovsky airfield near Moscow and crashed in the Black Sea after refueling in Adler on the morning of December 25, there were 92 people on board - eight crew members, eight military passengers, two federal civil servants of the Ministry of Defense , 64 artists of the Song and Dance Ensemble of the Russian Army named after Alexandrov, nine journalists from federal television channels and the head of the Fair Aid charity foundation, Elizaveta Glinka, known as Doctor Lisa.

Published a transcript of the audio recording from the cockpit. Judging by her data, in the first seconds both pilots were confused, then they pulled themselves together and tried to save the plane, but events developed too quickly.

DECODING

Speed ​​300... (Unintelligible.)

- (Inaudible.)

I took the racks, commander.

- (Inaudible.)

Wow, oh my!

(A sharp signal sounds.)

Flaps, bitch, what the *****!

Altimeter!

We... (Inaudible.)

(A signal sounds about a dangerous approach to the ground.)

- (Inaudible.)

Commander, we are falling!

Experts suggest that the emergency situation could have occurred on board due to a fatal mistake: the pilots could have mixed up the levers, and instead of retracting the landing gear, they pulled the flap lever.


From the blog

If this is a photo from the scene, then they took out a wing element. The flaps are in position... At the moment of retracting the flaps /Tu-154/ the aircraft is sinking and the nose is lowering - the stabilizer is shifted to a dive, compensating for the increase in pitching moment from retracting the mechanization. Since the landing gear is extended, the drag remains decent and does not allow the aircraft to accelerate intensively. The pilot feels the plane's descent and pulls the steering wheel towards himself. What happens? Increasing the angle of attack at an already low speed (that is, a high angle of attack). What's next? Problems. This is the physics of the process. It is possible to get out of such a situation if there is a large margin of thrust and the pilot recognized the situation in time.

In aviation, and not only in it, but in everyday life, it is very important to be able to do actions in a timely manner, and not in a hurry. And this is not at the subconscious level, but with an understanding of what you are doing. Exactly on time, exactly right.

I have already started writing on this topic, and I will definitely return to it more than once, and in general I am thinking of writing a separate material or adding a corresponding chapter to “Recommendations for actions in emergency and emergency situations.”

But today on the fingers.

Very often, young (and not so young) pilots associate the quality of work with its speed. Like, the faster I did everything, the better job I am. Some captains and even instructors motivate speed of work (“why are you fussing, we’ll be late now because of you... oh, let me do it myself... oops”) and even commit this themselves.

I am sure that everyone, without exception, has felt this effect of time pressure - when you want to do everything quickly, but your colleague is “stupid” about something. But the situation is getting worse and worse, and we need to do it quickly. For example, reprogram FMC to go to a spare position, but your colleague forgot where to start.

In the vast majority of cases, there is enough time not to rush anywhere. But there’s no need to pick it up either. A smart pilot once said, and Mark Gallay wrote after him, that “to work fast... means to make slow movements without breaks in between.” This phrase stuck with me so much in childhood, when I read the magnificent books of Mark Lazarevich, that I still use this rule for myself. I myself have tendencies to “overclock”, I know this, so I combat it using this advice, and others that suggest themselves:

1. Don't fuss. Do not make erratic or chaotic movements with your hands in the cabin when performing procedures. All of them are subject to logic and system, and are carried out in in a certain order. You do them in the same order. From day to day.

2. We are not in a sprint. Performing an action or a sequence of actions - you move your hand around the cabin, touch the switch, switch, lever - and EVALUATE whether you need to move it, whether it is the lever, switch and switch that you need, then you do the action.

3. I’ll make a separate point - you ALWAYS evaluate and evaluate again whether this is the control body you need and whether all the conditions are met before performing any action.

There are a million examples of hasty actions and a small cart. Even more. Not all of them ended in disasters or even incidents; most of them were corrected immediately, becoming a lesson and edification for those in a hurry.

But some may end sadly.

For example, on airliners of past generations there were several cases of retracting the landing gear during takeoff. One muttered something or made an incomprehensible gesture, the other (aimed at the next action - retracting the landing gear!) regarded this as a hint and removed the landing gear. The plane, which has no protection from this, happily throws itself on its belly and crumbles the propellers.

Incorrect data entry into FMC has also caused several unfortunate situations.

Very often there are cases of landing gear or mechanization at speeds exceeding the limit. Usually this is a consequence of the pressure of the situation - the pilots “catch up” with the profile, are in a hurry, exude excitement “come on, come on”, and either one commands the release, and the other, without checking the speed, carries out this command, or, first release, and then, aiming to the “race”, they catch up with both the glide path and the speed limit.

There are many scenarios. And in all cases, problems and a sad appearance in front of the authorities could be avoided by simply following the three rules written above.

I sometimes joke that a B737 pilot can only consider himself successful if he:

1. Turned off HYD SYSTEM B instead of ENGINE ANTI ICE (switches are located on adjacent rows)

2. Pressed TOGA instead of turning off the automatic traction (the buttons are close on the throttles, although they are located differently, but sometimes people confuse the actions “on the automatic” - our human property)

And if he also waved the landing gear lever below the neutral position, lowering the landing gear once again, and then immediately (mechanically and automatically) set it to retract - then this is simply a mega-successful pilot.

Usually in the latter case, the crew brings an excess speed of landing gear retraction.

Why successful? Because now, with three big shots, he finally begins to understand the importance of following the three rules written above.

The biggest problem is to work “automatically”. And even if you are three times experienced, if you do an action unconsciously, without control from the brain, mechanically, you can make a mess.

Even on the 737, where the landing gear and flap retract levers are spaced well apart and require different physical actions to operate, pilots retracted the flaps instead of the landing gear.

On the Tu-154, on which the levers are nearby, and operations with which require approximately the same action - extend your hand, pull the lever and move it up - there are a lot of such cases.


From the blog

I personally know two pilots who did this when they were young. Fortunately, this “jamb” of ergonomics has been known for a long time, young people are looked after more carefully than experienced ones - navigators cut off this action at a stroke and shoved the flaps back, simultaneously warming the NL-10 shorn heads of beginners.

If you miss this moment, then you can get into a lot of problems - after all, the landing gear is retracted immediately after takeoff, when the plane has not yet reached a significant speed, at which the consequences of a sharp drop in lift can be compensated quite safely.

When the flaps are retracted at insufficient speed, the plane tends to the ground, and if you try to counter this tendency by taking the helm “over,” you can reach critical angles of attack. And fall in the immediate vicinity of the solid earth's surface.

If the plane is also heavy, that is, the mass is close to the maximum, then all this together is very, very critical.

TAKE YOUR TIME!

Before you do anything, think and evaluate. Even if it seems to you that time is short.

 

It might be useful to read: