BEK Air crash Kazakhstan

PukkaStukka · 27-12-2019 5:45am #1

From https://www.flightradar24.com/blog/bek-air-flight-z92100-crashes-shortly-after-take-off-from-almaty/

From Bek Air flight Z9 2100 crashed shortly after take off from Almaty International Airport, the airport confirms. Flight 2100 was operating from Almaty to Nur-Sultan. The flight was operated by a Fokker 100 registered UP-F1007.

According to Reuters, there were 95 Pax & 5 crew aboard and there are at least 9 fatalities.

PukkaStukka · 27-12-2019 5:47am

From Sky New. https://news.sky.com/story/kazakhstan-plane-crashes-into-a-building-with-100-people-on-board-11895790

From CNN

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/12/26/asia/kazakhstan-plane-crash-intl-hnk/index.html

1123heavy · 27-12-2019 10:38am

Reports people slipped on ice on the wings while escaping the overwing exits. Inexcusable.

sparrowcar · 27-12-2019 11:02am

1123heavy wrote: »

Reports people slipped on ice on the wings while escaping the overwing exits. Inexcusable.

Jesus in this day and age.. was that on pprune or where did you hear that?

RadioRetro · 27-12-2019 1:13pm

sparrowcar wrote: »

Jesus in this day and age.. was that on pprune or where did you hear that?

PPRuNe: "Passengers reported icing on the wing, while exiting via overwing exit everyone slipped and fell on "icy wing"."

https://www.pprune.org/10648018-post23.html

1123heavy · 27-12-2019 1:16pm

sparrowcar wrote: »

Jesus in this day and age.. was that on pprune or where did you hear that?

Read here:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/26/world/asia/plane-crash-almaty-kazakhstan.html

"A man and woman to his right opened the emergency exit and clambered out, slipping and falling on the plane’s icy wing."

Is Kazakhstan excused from the clean aircraft concept or what?

PukkaStukka · 27-12-2019 1:44pm

Survivor interviewed on Sky News also repeated the icy wing claim.

However, looking at the wing itself in the crashed state, it was also difficult to see whether it was in take off configuration. Anyone with a more learned eye than mine see anything?

1123heavy · 27-12-2019 3:38pm

It's incredible how in this day and age crews still believe it's acceptable to fly with ice on the aircraft.

Not so long ago there were threads running on pprune where some pilots were saying 'ice on part x is ok because xyz', I read it all in disbelief. It certainly goes against any training I ever received which always said if there is a spec of ice on the aircraft it is to be cleared. The purpose being that it removes any notion of the captain being able to come to a judgment on such a matter and then judging it incorrectly.

This report will be an interesting one but sadly it seems the cause was obvious. A Bombardier challenger crashed here too some years ago due to icing too if I'm not mistaken?

HTCOne · 27-12-2019 8:38pm

PukkaStukka wrote: »

Survivor interviewed on Sky News also repeated the icy wing claim.

However, looking at the wing itself in the crashed state, it was also difficult to see whether it was in take off configuration. Anyone with a more learned eye than mine see anything?

F100 can depart without flaps. Often caused chatter on Tower frequencies over the years when other crews would see the clean wing and report it as the Fokker started its' takoff roll. There's no slats on the aircraft. Runways in Almaty are 4,400m and 4,500m due the elevation and also former use by Soviet supersonic bombers back in the day, so a clean wing would have been the norm.

EchoIndia · 27-12-2019 11:23pm

1123heavy wrote: »

It's incredible how in this day and age crews still believe it's acceptable to fly with ice on the aircraft.

Not so long ago there were threads running on pprune where some pilots were saying 'ice on part x is ok because xyz', I read it all in disbelief. It certainly goes against any training I ever received which always said if there is a spec of ice on the aircraft it is to be cleared. The purpose being that it removes any notion of the captain being able to come to a judgment on such a matter and then judging it incorrectly.

This report will be an interesting one but sadly it seems the cause was obvious. A Bombardier challenger crashed here too some years ago due to icing too if I'm not mistaken?

That Challenger crash was in Birmingham IIRC.

1123heavy · 28-12-2019 12:28am

EchoIndia wrote: »

That Challenger crash was in Birmingham IIRC.

There was probably another then in bhx

https://www.baaa-acro.com/crash/crash-canadair-cl-604-challenger-almaty-1-killed

this is the one i was referring to

Turbulent Bill · 28-12-2019 2:42am

HTCOne wrote: »

F100 can depart without flaps. Often caused chatter on Tower frequencies over the years when other crews would see the clean wing and report it as the Fokker started its' takoff roll. There's no slats on the aircraft. Runways in Almaty are 4,400m and 4,500m due the elevation and also former use by Soviet supersonic bombers back in the day, so a clean wing would have been the norm.

What's the advantage in not using the flaps? I would have thought any additional lift would be a good idea, even if not strictly necessary.

EchoIndia · 28-12-2019 10:58am

1123heavy wrote: »

There was probably another then in bhx

https://www.baaa-acro.com/crash/crash-canadair-cl-604-challenger-almaty-1-killed

this is the one i was referring to

The BHX one was N90AG on 4 January 2002 - longer ago than I thought.

HTCOne · 28-12-2019 1:24pm

Turbulent Bill wrote: »

What's the advantage in not using the flaps? I would have thought any additional lift would be a good idea, even if not strictly necessary.

On most airliners, the slats and flaps produce a lot of lift together, the Fokker has no leading edge devices so apparently the lift generated by the flaps alone isn’t particularly large. The advantages of a clean takeoff in the Fokker are less drag, meaning better acceleration, meaning better climb performance. A lower power setting can also be set on the engines, saving fuel and wear and tear.

Carawaystick · 29-12-2019 1:59am

1123heavy wrote: »

It's incredible how in this day and age crews still believe it's acceptable to fly with ice on the aircraft.

Not so long ago there were threads running on pprune where some pilots were saying 'ice on part x is ok because xyz', I read it all in disbelief. It certainly goes against any training I ever received which always said if there is a spec of ice on the aircraft it is to be cleared. The purpose being that it removes any notion of the captain being able to come to a judgment on such a matter and then judging it incorrectly.

I've been on loads of flights with ice on the windows. I presume you mean to qualify your statement.

Inquitus · 29-12-2019 2:32pm

There were 2 tailstrikes prior to the takeoff as well apparently, also a multitude of reports of icing on the wing.

1123heavy · 29-12-2019 5:14pm

Carawaystick wrote: »

I've been on loads of flights with ice on the windows. I presume you mean to qualify your statement.

Statement is valid as per ICAO doc 9640:

http://code7700.com/pdfs/icao/icao_doc_9640_manual_of_aircraft_ground_de-Icing_anti-Icing_operations.pdf

Ice on fuselage/windows on ground? A sure sign there's likely ice on the wings - de ice.

Ice on windows in flight? Meaningless. Windows don't produce lift and the wings/engines etc are covered by anti ice.

martinsvi · 30-12-2019 1:13pm

that snow/ice could have been thrown on to the wing after the impact, also de-icing fluid is very slippery by itself, people can easily slip on it thinking it is ice or slush. Also the conditions at the time is not something I would describe as icing inducing - poor visibility due to smoke, but pretty much clear skies, temperatures in double negative digits.. I wouldn't dig too much into these reports before airport authorities and experts confirm whether de-icing was done or not and whether it was needed or not.

In my experience in this part of the world, chances of them flying out with a ton of ice on the wings are equally as high as ground handling loading the aircraft completely in a wrong way and delivering made up load sheet to the crew just to match the limits, or a granny tossing coins in the engine before the flight for good luck..

PukkaStukka · 31-12-2019 10:01am

This rather sad account of events was published on AV Herald earlier, with my emphasis in bold. Awful and tragic

AVHerald wrote:

On Dec 30th 2019 the airline reported in a press conference, that the captain (more than 21,000 hours total, more than 4,000 hours in command on type) was pilot flying, the first officer (more than 11,500 hours total, more than 5,000 hours on type) was pilot monitoring. The takeoff mass of the aircraft was 39,800 kg, thereof 6,100kg of fuel. The aircraft was configured at flaps 0 for departure. The captain decided only the elevators were to be de-iced. The aircraft departed runway 05R, engines and systems were all working normally. The aircraft rotated and became airborne at 07:20:36L at 148 KIAS. The aircraft reached a maximum height of 20 feet, rolled right to a bank angle of 5 degrees, rolled left to 18 degrees left bank angle and rolled right again to 14.5 degrees losing height, the pitch dropped from 16 degrees nose up to 4 degrees nose down and went up to 14.7 degrees nose up again, the aircraft contacted ground, climbed to 6 feet AGL again, pitch reduced to 5 degrees nose up, the aircraft descended to the ground again, speed decaying reaching 129 KIAS, while on the ground the airspeed recovered again to 148 KIAS, the pitch increased 19.6 degrees, the aircraft climbed to 11 feet AGL, the gear was retracted, the aircraft lost speed again reaching 130 KIAS, pitch dropped 1.6 degrees nose down and the aircraft impacted ground a last time.

BEK Air crash Kazakhstan

Comments