Incredible Tu-134 runway over run caught on video!!

teacher · Post by **teacher** » Thu Nov 09, 2006 6:25 am

Not sure if this was posted already but here's a link to the vid and article. 20 people on board, all survived. This is a prime example of the dangers of aborting after V1, in this case they actually rotated than aborted. I wasn't there so can't pass judgement, just glad everyone survived!!

Video: Russian navy Tupolev Tu-134 crashes after late aborted take-off
By Justin Wastnage

Remarkably, nobody was killed when the crew of this Russian navy Tupolev Tu-134 tried to abort their take-off following a possible bird-strike at the Gvardeyskoye naval air base in the Ukraine.

The 10 July accident clearly demonstrates the fact that a take-off aborted above V1 decision speed is virtually certain to end in an overrun.

The aircraft, operated on behalf of the Russian Black Sea Fleet Aviation unit Aviatsiya Voyenno-Morskoyo Flota was taking off from the 3,000m (10,000ft) runway on the base near the Ukrainian city of Simferopol on 10 July when the number one engine failed and caught fire. Three navy officers, of a reported 20 on board, were injured.

http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles/20 ... orted.html

. ._ · Post by **. ._** » Thu Nov 09, 2006 7:49 am

How the hell did people survive that?!?!?!?

2 words

LU CKY!!!

-istp

Donald · Post by **Donald** » Thu Nov 09, 2006 8:58 am

Wow.

Bede · Post by **Bede** » Thu Nov 09, 2006 11:32 am

If you look closly, they actually took off and landed again, you can see after rotation a small puff of smoke or dust from the wheels touching down again.

Snowroller · Post by **Snowroller** » Thu Nov 09, 2006 1:16 pm

From looking at their fire fighting equipment it`s a good job they did get out in time

Subandriyo · Post by **Subandriyo** » Thu Nov 09, 2006 2:07 pm

I can't believe everyone survived that.

ei ei owe · Post by **ei ei owe** » Thu Nov 09, 2006 5:58 pm

Do those guys not train the V1, Vr V2 situations? Can't tell me that after going airborne you'd wanna come back down. Unless maybe all engines went tits up?

Glory. · Post by **Glory.** » Thu Nov 09, 2006 6:37 pm

people can never seem to hold a camera steady

Snowroller · Post by **Snowroller** » Thu Nov 09, 2006 6:44 pm

Too much vodka?

Bubbaganoosh · Post by **Bubbaganoosh** » Thu Nov 09, 2006 11:10 pm

Snowroller wrote:Too much vodka?

Or not enough.

. . · Post by **. .** » Fri Nov 10, 2006 9:16 am

Didn't perimeters 99 do the same thing last year minus the fireball?

asdfasd · Post by **asdfasd** » Fri Nov 10, 2006 9:23 am

I don’t think they took off and landed again, if you look at the video the nose comes up, and remains up for quite some time. Ill bet they were just overweight, saw the end coming, went firewall thrust and blew and engine.

sidestick stirrer · Post by **sidestick stirrer** » Fri Nov 10, 2006 10:36 am

Two observations:
The tree in the video early in the takeoff run would seem to indicate a tailwind.
The left-hand engine starts streaming white vapour as the airplane passes abeam the camera.
Why the airplane never rotated more than part-way to a lift-off attitude might be another question.

Edi · Post by **Edi** » Fri Nov 10, 2006 6:14 pm

I don’t think they took off. The wheels are still in the same rotation speed when left the runway and could not make smoke at touch-down. They just rotated, and the survival instinct was most predominant like all the training they did and any rational decision.

hazatude · Post by **hazatude** » Fri Nov 10, 2006 6:20 pm

Looks to me like the bastard blew up real good.

I'm glad everyone was ok.

Troubleshot · Post by **Troubleshot** » Fri Nov 10, 2006 7:16 pm

The smoke coming from the wheels was probably the brakes starting to catch on fire...then the fuse plugs (if installed) started to blow in the rims causing a big "puff"

or it could have been a re-touch down.... hard to tell...I like aero bars, they have bubbles.

rotorfloat · Post by **rotorfloat** » Fri Nov 10, 2006 8:52 pm

Any possibility of it not being able to continue takeoff on one stove?

Elliot Moose · Post by **Elliot Moose** » Sun Nov 12, 2006 12:35 am

That is some scary shit.
As for the high speed reject, all I can say is that I've spent some time watching those Russian birds taking off out of Moscow, and even on two engines they pretty much climb like a loaded 748 in hot weather. The primary design spec for the engines on everything Russian is to efficiently convert fuel to noise--thrust is an incidental by product of the operation.

Even the smaller stuff like the TU-134 is like that, so I wouldn't be surprised if a single engine takeoff is almost as scary as being a test pilot and risking the after V1 reject! Then there is the fact that Russian pilots and their training programs are shall we say "different". Almost every time a new company buys western aircraft some poor training centre goes through hell trying to teach basic flying skills and cockpit management with these guys. Lots of the rich guys buying private jets (western ones) these days REFUSE to have Russians in the cockpit no matter who they are. I have worked with companies who have that policy and I talked to a demo pilot in Moscow who was having a bad time finding a corporate job for that very reason.

Four1oh · Post by **Four1oh** » Sun Nov 12, 2006 7:22 pm

Yeah, I was thinking it might have been a case of a single-engine airplane, lose one, and you aren't going flying. It did look like they tried to get airborne, but it wouldn't lift off so then they rejected. Why else would they keep the nose up so long?

Troubleshot · Post by **Troubleshot** » Sun Nov 12, 2006 7:28 pm

Four1oh wrote:Yeah, I was thinking it might have been a case of a single-engine airplane, lose one, and you aren't going flying. It did look like they tried to get airborne, but it wouldn't lift off so then they rejected. Why else would they keep the nose up so long?

I thought you guys did that to induce drag?? I don't know just askin