Ural A320 lands in field

Skåning

Well-Known Member
Not sure how I missed this, but a Ural A320 landed in a field (successfully) during a divert. They had a green hyd system failure but had higher than expected fuel burn so put it down 100nm short of the divert field.

A Ural Airlines Airbus A320-200, registration RA-73805 performing flight U6-1383 from Sochi to Omsk (Russia) with 159 passengers and 6 crew, was on final approach to Omsk's runway 07 (length 2500 meters/8200 feet) when the crew initiated a go around from about 600 meters MSL (2000 feet MSL) due to a hydraulics failure at 07:41L (01:41Z). The aircraft climbed to FL180 and diverted to Novosibirsk about 320nm east of Omsk at a speed over ground of about 260 knots over ground, however, needed to perform a forced landing on an open field about 11km northeast of the village of Kamenka, Ubinsky District (approx. position N55.14 E79.67), about 110nm short/west of Novosibirsk at about 09:45L (02:45Z) touching down at approximate position N55.2321 E79.7494 and coming to rest at position N55.2360, E79.7578 after about 700 meters/2300 feet rollout. There were no injuries, the aircraft received damage to gear and wings.


1695356082324.jpeg


1695356287927.jpeg


1695356504823.jpeg
 
Last edited:
Wow I figured this already had a thread, it happened a week ago at least? 100nm is quite the miscalculation but at least everyone got out OK. I recently browsed thru the history of full power losses in all engines on commercial flights. The vast majority were Caravans either doing skydiving or night cargo flying and they usually had happy endings because Caravan. But dozens of airliners have run out of fuel since the 1930s, and almost all of them are in Russia and "the stans" lol. Until modern times, anyway. Now almost all of these incidents are in Latin America. Say what you will about pilots in certain Asian countries, but they haven't run out of gas that I could find lol.

They did the same thing a couple years ago. They hit some birds and put it in a field. I guess it's a good thing they have lots of fields in Russia.

Ural Airlines Flight 178 - Wikipedia

Didn't know this part:
Instead of being published, the report was leaked in August 2022. The report blames the pilots of several mistakes instead of heroism. An aviation journalist explained one of the main contributing factors was the Russian attitude of avoiding non-standard decisions such as holding on the runway and delaying the takeoff-run or even abort takeoff. Both the crew had seen the birds and were aware of them before takeoff begun, both were swearing because of the birds. As for the continuing events, the crew was described as disorganized as they didn't retract the undercarriage nor disabled the alarm gone off after autopilot disengagement. An emergency landing was not talked about in the cockpit, as a consequence the engines were not shut down on touchdown. Retracting the undercarriage in the last phase of the flight was interpreted as a measure to gain speed by the investigation, not as a preparation for an emergency landing as claimed by the pilots.

So the 600hr 23 y/o FO I guess was just along for the ride lol.
 
There was the famous Gimli glider. Air Canada 767 ran out of gas. Fuel gages deferred and when it was fueled to a known quantity, there was a little mix up between liters and gallons.
There’s definitely been some in the west, just not super recent (dead stick landings)




 
Running an airplane out of gas after flying away from an airport and landing in a field only to pose for pictures with it. This make my dogs look like amateurs when they come smiling in my face after leaving a deuce somewhere in the house. “Dad look at what I did”
 
There was the famous Gimli glider. Air Canada 767 ran out of gas. Fuel gages deferred and when it was fueled to a known quantity, there was a little mix up between liters and gallons.
You don't want to know about a couple of recent close calls of aircraft filled to "known quantity" due to tank quantity indications being inop. They got a lot closer than they should have. I personally don't believe they should be so easily differed and if they are, it should only be for one flight to get to Mx. Many times, it was a result of Mx not understanding the proper procedure for sticking the tanks. The FAA should really re-examine items on MEL lists provided by the manufacturers as there are a couple of other items that greatly increase risk.
 
Another Russian aviation story of complete incompetence being spun into some sort of act of heroism. Impressive physical feat to put it down I suppose.

Special meeeeeeeeeeeelitary operation?
 
You don't want to know about a couple of recent close calls of aircraft filled to "known quantity" due to tank quantity indications being inop. They got a lot closer than they should have. I personally don't believe they should be so easily differed and if they are, it should only be for one flight to get to Mx. Many times, it was a result of Mx not understanding the proper procedure for sticking the tanks. The FAA should really re-examine items on MEL lists provided by the manufacturers as there are a couple of other items that greatly increase risk.
I'd like to hear about those. Pretending a pilot took off without knowing how much fuel was onboard and blaming MX when they ran out is pathetic. I agree, if the fuel quantity indication system is inop let's just park the airplane. I remember one of the first things drilled into my head as a student pilot was never trust the fuel gage, so I'd physically check the quantity before every flight and plan accordingly. I don't know what else to say other than blaming MX feels like a cheap shot. Are you so precious that you can't actually verify the quantity of the fuel on the airplane you're going to fly? The option I've often seen used in these situations in the MEL is "top it off", certainly not cost effective but it's always worked.
 
I'd like to hear about those. Pretending a pilot took off without knowing how much fuel was onboard and blaming MX when they ran out is pathetic. I agree, if the fuel quantity indication system is inop let's just park the airplane. I remember one of the first things drilled into my head as a student pilot was never trust the fuel gage, so I'd physically check the quantity before every flight and plan accordingly. I don't know what else to say other than blaming MX feels like a cheap shot. Are you so precious that you can't actually verify the quantity of the fuel on the airplane you're going to fly? The option I've often seen used in these situations in the MEL is "top it off", certainly not cost effective but it's always worked.
On big airplanes, the MEL for inop or erroneous gauges is to “stick” the tanks. It is literally a Mx operation. We have had a couple of incidents where Mx didn’t stick the tanks correctly, and that led to issues, including flaming #’s 2 and 3 out on one occasion.

So it is absolutely correct to blame Mx. When you hold almost 90,000 lbs in one main tank, and a total of approximately 359,000 lbs, it’s not always possible to “top them off” when Boeing has a procedure to deal with an inop gauge.
 
On big airplanes, the MEL for inop or erroneous gauges is to “stick” the tanks. It is literally a Mx operation. We have had a couple of incidents where Mx didn’t stick the tanks correctly, and that led to issues, including flaming #’s 2 and 3 out on one occasion.

So it is absolutely correct to blame Mx. When you hold almost 90,000 lbs in one main tank, and a total of approximately 359,000 lbs, it’s not always possible to “top them off” when Boeing has a procedure to deal with an inop gauge.
Tell me about when you used to fly Gulfstreams in Russia for oligarchs, what did your MEL say then and what would you have done? Would you write it up and ground the airplane or top it off and send it? If you flew a G-V I know you sent it, the fuel quantity indication on those planes are notoriously fussy and denying it just solidifies your dishonesty. You can take off with yellow dashes but you have to have a known quantity of fuel. As far as I know there are two ways to do that on a Gulfstream, you can empty it, or you can top it off. So I'd imagine you were adept at resetting the FQMC from the cockpit, as long as the EICAS was clear you weren't breaking any rules. What was your strategy? Did you have an MEL?
 
Last edited:
Tell me about when you used to fly Gulfstreams in Russia for oligarchs, what did your MEL say then and what would you have done? Would you write it up and ground the airplane or top it off and send it? If you flew a G-V I know you sent it, the fuel quantity indication on those planes are notoriously fussy and denying it just solidifies your dishonesty. You can take off with yellow dashes but you have to have a known quantity of fuel. As far as I know there are two ways to do that on a Gulfstream, you can empty it, or you can top it off. So I'd imagine you were adept at resetting the FQMC from the cockpit, as long as the EICAS was clear you weren't breaking any rules. What was your strategy? Did you have an MEL?
I don’t fly Gulfstreams any more. To indulge your question though, we didn’t trust the Mx in Russia, so we would’ve never MELed the fuel indications. If we had Mx in Western European countries, we would’ve trusted them more. However, we never had issues with the fuel system. Yes, we had an MEL.

Now, I fly bigger airplanes, as a lot of people do on here, and Mx has absolutely screwed pilots over by either incorrectly sticking the tanks, or not doing it at all. So the original point stands, both in this side topic, and as far as Russia, Mx, and fuel issues.

Also, on Russian flying, if fuel indication problems did happen, most of our flights we wouldn’t have been able to “top it off and send it” due to leg lengths and max landing weight issues.
 
Back
Top