Go to the 1:10 minute mark where the landing lights appear from the clouds/mist/snow. Looks a lot like the runway didn't show up where the pilot expected it, and he came in way too hard, overstressing the airframe on touchdown. The cockpit section landed quite a way from the rest of the fuselage, killing two of the four crew on impact; another died in hospital according to later reports. By one source, the aircraft also carried a Kh-22N (AS-4 "Kitchen") missile and ammunition for the rear guns, unlike in the official statement.

quote:

Russian Tu-22M3 Bomber Crashes in Murmansk Region Killing Two Crew Members

January 22, 2019 David Cenciotti

A Russian Air Force Tu-22M3 supersonic bomber crashed at Olenegorsk airbase, in the Murmansk region, shortly after 13:30LT on Jan. 22. According to the first reports, the aircraft was attempting to recover at its homebase in bad weather after a training sortie when it performed a hard landing. Of the four crew members, two were injured and were transported to a medical facility to receive assistance whereas two were killed.

The Russian MoD said in a public release that the Tu-22 mission was carried out without weapons.

The Russian Tupolev Tu-22M3 is an updated variant of the Cold War-era Tu-22 Binder, a twin-engine supersonic bomber with variable geometry swept wings. The Tu-22M3 and M3M variants are in wide service in Russia, with over 80 reported in flying with the Russian Air Force and more than 40 in use with Russian Naval Aviation as long-range maritime patrol, surveillance and attack aircraft. Indeed, the aircraft was primarily developed as an anti-ship missile carrier for the Soviet/Russian supersonic Kh-22/32 anti-ship missiles with range of up to 1,000 km (621 miles) as well as for smaller Kh-15 missiles with range of up to 300 km (160 miles).

[...]

https://theaviationist.com/201...ng-two-crew-members/

I don't care who you are, I'm sorry for the crew who lost their lives.

The Tu-22 Backfire is one of the Russian Cold War heroes, flown by their Naval Aviation Branch, and looks very beautiful in flight.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: tacfoley,

The approach was very fast and not surprisingly the aircraft broke apart on initial impact.

Frame by frame, there's fuselage contact; it appears to have more than compressed the gear. A hard landing is typically anything in excess of approximately 600 feet per minute descent rate; to maintain an instrument approach normal glide path, 500-800 fpm is typically required until the landing is initiated, never more than 1,000 fpm.

This aircraft stuck at a much higher vertical rate; higher vertical speed can occur with high landing speeds, but even at 180-200 knots, the vertical rate isn't that high.

The other way this occurs is chasing the glide path, or diving for the runway. It's hard to tell in the picture, but from the time the landing lights appeared, the crew appears to initiate a higher descent rate, perhaps perceiving themselves high and diving for the runway. In western terms, it's called destabilizing the approach, and is extremely dangerous.

High forward speed won't cause the aircraft to break up. They may have been maintaining a higher speed due to ice considerations, but otherwise were reported to be light (no weapons). Higher forward speed does require an increased vertical descent rate, and it's vertical descent rate that is dangerous, but a high approach speed doesn't do this. A high vertical speed does; and a fast approach won't increase it that much; failure to arrest the descent at best would result in a firm landing; this has the appearance of diving for the deck.

There are two ILS approaches at Murmansk. An ILS provides vertical guidance on a constant angle to the runway. Both use a standard 3 degree glidepath angle, and require an approximate 950 fpm descent rate at 180 knots, which is a fast approach speed; I don't know what the TU22 uses.

If one gets high on the approach or above the electronic glide path, increasing the descent rate is required to get back to where one needs to be. Chasing the glideslope like that is dangerous below 1,000'. It's not evident that this occurred here, but it's clear that the aircraft impacted the ground at a MUCH higher vertical rate than it should. If the flight arrives at the missed approach point in low visibility and the pilot sees the runway at the last second, it should be continued to the runway, in a stable configuration. It's not uncommon for pilots to increase the descent when they have the runway in sight, to pick up the end of the runway and avoid touching down farther down the runway. In low visibility conditions or white-out conditions (both in this case), the runway appears farther away, and the aircraft appears higher than it is, which can lead to a late flare (arresting the descent rate). There appears to be no flare here.

The engines can be heard changing just prior to ground contact, it appears from the video that at around 100' the pilot retarded the throttles to idle, which can also increase sink rate.

I just saw one of these TU22's by the runway in Riga a couple of days ago.

TU22 rejected takeoff and overrun:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Zu3W7_XCvg

I feel for anyone flying in those conditions, it looks absolutely awful, at or below minimums.

RIP.

We will probably never know the facts about how/why that plane crashed.

Regret the loss of the crew members, and the sadness to their families.

Outstanding analysis, sns3guppy. I'll add that a snow-covered runway in those weather conditions also negatively affects one's ability to discern height above the runway and when to begin the flare. Been there, done that, got the chewing out by the pax after the firm landing. ("You're lucky to be alive, ma'am. Thank you for flying with us.")

Something that would be interesting to know is how close to gross landing weight the aircraft was. That would also affect the aircraft's ability to arrest the sink rate and maintain structural integrity when the wheels contacted the ground. Frankly I'm a bit surprised the aircraft broke apart like it did unless it was at gross weight or over.

The low visibility, snow, and lack of contrast all around, with most likely no peripheral reference for depth perception or to give any sense of three dimensions works against the crew on multiple fronts. The runway, with snow on it, appears more distant, and the flight appears higher; the runway appears narrower (or not at all, if covered in snow). Depth perception in general is much harder.

The visual cues of the descent, the sense of the rate of closure with the runway, is hampered or eliminated. It's a similar effect to a glassy water landing in a seaplane, in which there is no ability to discern depth; often in a seaplane the solution is to approach parallel or close to the shore, for reference, or to drop an object in the water to give a reference point. On a white-out situation with low visibility, some frame of reference can be immensely helpful.

The TU22 is an old airplane with an old panel. Even with a radio altimeter and in the case of EGPWS and associated systems providing a voiceover altitude readout, such landings can be challenging and a mental game; more so when cockpit resources are dated and limited.

The breakup suggests an extremely hard landing, far in excess of what most of us would consider anyting but extreme. The way the rest of the fuselage bounces as the cockpit breaks clear is remarkably dramatic. Reports indicate that two crew survived, which is remarkable given the impact and subsequent crash of the rest of the aircraft adjacent to what's left of the cockpit section.

As noted, subsequent reports say one of the two crew who survived initial impact later died in hospital, which is unsurprising looking at imagery of the wreckage. Aircraft is stated to have carried an inert Kh-22 training missile on port wing and 750 rounds of 23 mm. The live missile weighs in at close to six tons, and it's probably nothing you are expected to bring back from a real mission; but then that's what training rounds are for.

quote:

Originally posted by tacfoley:
I don't care who you are, I'm sorry for the crew who lost their lives.

The Tu-22 Backfire is one of the Russian Cold War heroes, flown by their Naval Aviation Branch, and looks very beautiful in flight.

Agree in full. BTW while I have a hold of you, I didn't forget about your fellow NI veteran I promised to hit up back on the Brexit thread; but first he was busy, then I - new job and all. Calmer seas ahead now, I'll reach out again.

quote:

Originally posted by BansheeOne:
As noted, subsequent reports say one of the two crew who survived initial impact later died in hospital, which is unsurprising looking at imagery of the wreckage. Aircraft is stated to have carried an inert Kh-22 training missile on port wing and 750 rounds of 23 mm. The live missile weighs in at close to six tons, and it's probably nothing you are expected to bring back from a real mission; but then that's what training rounds are for.

quote:

Originally posted by tacfoley:
I don't care who you are, I'm sorry for the crew who lost their lives.

The Tu-22 Backfire is one of the Russian Cold War heroes, flown by their Naval Aviation Branch, and looks very beautiful in flight.

Agree in full. BTW while I have a hold of you, I didn't forget about your fellow NI veteran I promised to hit up back on the Brexit thread; but first he was busy, then I - new job and all. Calmer seas ahead now, I'll reach out again.

Gotcha.

Thanks.

quote:

Originally posted by BansheeOne:
The live missile weighs in at close to six tons, and it's probably nothing you are expected to bring back from a real mission;

Why would you not be expected to bring back live ordinance? One of the rationals of a bomber fleet is that is can be deployed, but the strike, particularly a strategic strike, can be recalled prior to the ordinance being deployed. Certainly we wouldn't expect our own bomber fleet to jettison its payload after such a recall, would we? I wouldn't think we would be dumping nuclear ordinance prior to landing, so I'd think a bomber would be designed to land with its ordinance intact.

quote:

Originally posted by sigcrazy7:
I wouldn't think we would be dumping nuclear ordinance prior to landing, so I'd think a bomber would be designed to land with its ordinance intact.

Which is what it was doing.

It's worth noting that underwing stores, especially asymmetric configurations, cause additional challenges for an instrument approach (heavy wing + additional asymmetric drag), and underwing stores don't have anti-ice capability, and alter airflow over and around a wing.

OK so I just looked at the approach plates for Murmansk (ULMM). There are 2 ILS approaches both of which have higher than standard mins. I assume that the TU22 is a cat D aircraft. IMO there is NO way that the visibility and ceiling were anywhere close to mins for a cat D aircraft. They really had no business continuing with the approach.

This crash was at a military base not the international airport I know but I can guarantee that the airport has better instrument approaches than the mil base does.

quote:

Originally posted by qxsoup:
OK so I just looked at the approach plates for Murmansk (ULMM). There are 2 ILS approaches both of which have higher than standard mins. I assume that the TU22 is a cat D aircraft. IMO there is NO way that the visibility and ceiling were anywhere close to mins for a cat D aircraft. They really had no business continuing with the approach.

This crash was at a military base not the international airport I know but I can guarantee that the airport has better instrument approaches than the mil base does.

Is there any mention of a PAR approach ?? I believe this stands for precision approach radar. When I lived in Roswelll, NM. the Airforce guys would come and use our tower to practice.... Interesting to listen to....

Too bad for the crew. That's a terrible thing to see.

quote:

Originally posted by qxsoup:
OK so I just looked at the approach plates for Murmansk (ULMM). There are 2 ILS approaches both of which have higher than standard mins. I assume that the TU22 is a cat D aircraft. IMO there is NO way that the visibility and ceiling were anywhere close to mins for a cat D aircraft. They really had no business continuing with the approach.

This crash was at a military base not the international airport I know but I can guarantee that the airport has better instrument approaches than the mil base does.

Murmansk ILS 31 has a Cat D min of 479', which is 213' above touchdown. Standard Cat I min is 200', so only 13' different.

Rwy 13 ILS has 469' which is 226' radio altitude...again only 26' above standard Cat 1 approach minimums. Without knowing what their visual reference was on final, it's impossible to say what they were using or what they saw, and insufficient information is presently available regarding their procedure.

It's also worth remembering that Russia uses QFE, not QNH, for altimeter, which can add another wrinkle, especially in cold weather. Note that Murmansk altimeter is QFE (field elevation), and is set in milimeters. Hectopascals and QNH must be requested. Additionally, Russian airspace and altitudes are assigned in meters, which is less precise than feet, and can lead to error.

It's worth noting that the localizer isn't authorized, if the glideslope is out.

I also read from another source that the higher than normal approach speed was due to a hydraulic systems failure that prevented the deployment of flaps

Obviously they had some fuel onboard but you have to wonder if they boxed themselves in with no suitable divert or no fuel to get to one.

I have BTDT, got the t-shirt and been in an aircraft shooting a PAR & self contained (but not approved) aircraft radar approach to below minimums with no other options; it's no fun sucking the seat cushion up your ass.

At least we had state of the art instruments, heads up display & flight controls and were in an aircraft designed to smack down with an excessive decent rate without coming apart at the seams.

quote:

Originally posted by nhtagmember:
I also read from another source that the higher than normal approach speed was due to a hydraulic systems failure that prevented the deployment of flaps

Ah, that would really really add to the suck of that situation.

yep....