this post was submitted on 13 Sep 2023
262 points (98.5% liked)

World News

38531 readers
1813 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

A Russian airliner carrying 170 people was forced to crash-land in a field after a hydraulics failure.

No one was injured in the emergency, which left the Ural Airlines Airbus A320 stranded next to a forest in the Novosibirsk region of Siberia.

Ural said the pilot "selected" the landing site after the jet's hydraulic systems failed while approaching Omsk.

The incident sparked denials from the airline that it was unable to service its planes due to sanctions on Russia.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] vlad76@lemmy.sdf.org 101 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The pilot is a hero. Picking out a field from the air, landing a full plane on it, and not have any injuries is no small feat.

[–] espentan@lemmy.world 68 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Perhaps we're beginning to see the effects of spare parts shortage.

[–] MataVatnik@lemmy.world 31 points 1 year ago

Iran deals with a higher rate of airplane accidents because of sanctions so when I saw the title I automatically assumed the same thing.

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

Absolutely, the plane was cut up completely, to be used for spare parts and scrap, because they can't repair it.

https://youtu.be/H4b25pp_tqU?t=1421

[–] Godric@lemmy.world 48 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Everyone on board was desperately trying to think if they ever did anything to offend Putin at any time.

[–] electrogamerman@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

And/or they were looking around for a russian politician/general/etc

[–] IphtashuFitz@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Nah, they were safe. Windows on airplanes don’t open, so they couldn’t have possibly fallen out of them.

[–] dm_me_your_feet@lemmy.world 17 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

How are those Aliexpress spare parts working for ya, RuZZia?

[–] linuxfiend@kbin.social 14 points 1 year ago

Those are impressive canards.

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Russia is lacking spare parts, which is probably why instead of repairing it, they cut it up for scrap and spare parts.

https://youtu.be/H4b25pp_tqU?t=1421

Apparently a plane can't be repaired after an emergency landing some claim.

Still hilarious that Russia is short of planes, and now cut this one up, because it had to land in a field. 😋

[–] ShadowRam@kbin.social 17 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

I mean screw russia, but be real.

NO one is repairing and using an airplane frame that has had a crash.

We write off cars for less... you definitely write off an airplane frame that's had a landing like that, and never certify it for re-use.

Cutting it up to transport it out of there is 100% normal for any nation.

[–] andyburke@kbin.social 8 points 1 year ago

My friend, many, many planes that have been crashed have been serviced and returned to service, including airliners.

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

OK I thought it would still be usable since it's standing on the wheels seemingly completely unharmed. After all the emergency landing went extremely well, and all passengers are OK.

[–] bfg9k@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Commercial aircraft like airbuses are purpose-built for landing on proper sealed runways, if it's brought down on soft dirt the engines are filled with dust and debris, the landing gear is damaged as it drags across the field, and the airframe itself could have suffered fractures that won't become apparent until the hull blows out unexpectedly one day.

It is in one piece but there's hidden damage to all sorts of things

[–] stevehobbes@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

We X-ray these things all the time.

Many many airliners have slid off runways all the time and reenter service.

For decades Boeing sold a 737 Gravel Kit for their planes to minimize FOD ingest on unimproved surfaces.

http://www.b737.org.uk/unpavedstripkit.htm

The gear didn’t collapse. The damage is probably fairly minimal, including the engines which were probably at idle, and they most likely didn’t use or need thrust reversers.

Not saying it’s a certainty if this happened in the US or EU that it would fly again, but it isn’t impossible.

I will say it’s unlikely because getting it out of a field in one piece is no small task - and probably more expensive than the plane is worth relative to the parts value, but not because of any inherent damage. Just because the engines are the most valuable thing on a plane and much easier to take those off the plane than move the airframe without damaging it more.

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

OK I see, still a bit hilarious, that while they may be short of planes, they lose them like this.

[–] peopleproblems@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

This is a great example of "it's expensive to be poor"

[–] nous@programming.dev 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

On rough ground that would put a lot of stress in the landing system and likely the rest of the plane. Small cracks in things can lead to catastrophic failure later on even if everything looks fine now. Would you want to take a chance on that?

Not to mention they have to get it out of the field. That alone is probably not worth the effort to save a possibly compromised frame.

[–] Treczoks@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago

Would you want to take a chance on that?

I would not. But are you sure about Russia? And even if they just break up the plane for parts, would it really be safe to fly a plane that relies on parts salvaged from this one?

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

OK I see, still a bit hilarious, that while they may be short of planes, they lose them like this.

[–] PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

Airliners cost around $100 million or more though. If they can, they're going to be repaired and put back in the service.

[–] Mamertine@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Logistically how would they get an airliner from a field back to an airport?

That's not taking off from the field. The simplest way to get it out of the field is to make it into many small parts.

[–] nulluser@programming.dev 6 points 1 year ago

I'm sure a couple of intrepid Ukrainian farmers with tractors could get the job done before sunset.

[–] space@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I've seen some situations like this in Air Crash Investigation, they just did the minimum repairs to get the plane working and had test pilots fly it away.

[–] thurstylark@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Yeah, if this isn't possible, and it's still in good enough condition to fix and fly, they disassemble the plane and ship it somewhere where it can be reassembled and fixed.

Very unlikely that it's fixable, though. Only heard of a few cases where it wasn't more economical to just write it off after a landing like that.

Another factor to consider is how much it'll cost to actually pull that off, and if it's not in a very accessible location (like, idk, fucking siberia or something), that adds to the cost of recovery.

[–] monk@lemmy.unboiled.info 1 points 1 year ago

Just leave for the nearest place that accepts scrap metal and wait.

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

Still a bit hilarious, that while they may be short of planes, they lose them like this.

[–] fruitleatherpostcard@lemm.ee 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I thought that was some kind of super cool multiple x-wing jet at first glance.

[–] vrojak@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

You know what? Fuck you, X-Wings your A320

[–] Hildegarde@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

The A320 is fly by wire. Nearly all of the flight controls are operated by the hydraulic systems. A failure of all three hydraulic systems would make this plane incredibly difficult to fly.

A well maintained A320 should never have to ditch due to hydraulic issues, the redundancy makes sure of that. This crash is almost assuredly caused by the sanctions leading to planes dispatching with more inoperative systems than they should have.

[–] SpeziSuchtel@feddit.de 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Intereating fact: four years ago, the same airline had to land in a field after some bird strikes.

[–] expatriado@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

they were flying over France?

[–] autotldr@lemmings.world 6 points 1 year ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


No one was injured in the emergency, which left the Ural Airlines Airbus A320 stranded next to a forest in the Novosibirsk region of Siberia.

Pictures showed the plane stranded in a corn field, its emergency doors open and ramps down, and people milling around.

Sergei Skuratov, the head of Ural Airlines, said that one of the plane's hydraulic systems failed as it flew to Omsk from Sochi on the Black Sea coast.

He denied that the plane had caught fire, saying apparent scorch marks above one of the wings seen in pictures on social media was "just dirt".

The emergency landing comes as Russian airlines face difficulty obtaining spare parts due to Western sanctions on Moscow over its offensive in Ukraine.

In March, the Russian media outlet Vedomosti quoted Ural Airlines official Igor Poddubny as saying that it had about three months before they began breaking up planes for parts.


The original article contains 534 words, the summary contains 151 words. Saved 72%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[–] ShittyBeatlesFCPres@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I’m so jealous they got to take the slides down. I’d pay a lot more extra for an exit row if you got to do that.

[–] Reveneight@programming.dev 17 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I used to work in flight test, and I got to take the slide one time after some emergency exit testing. They are very fun and quite fast in order to get everyone out of the plane quickly. Fun facts about emergency exit slides: they use specialized gasses and packing methods for quick inflation and to fit in the tiniest amount of space possible, so they cost about $70,000 a pop. Also, the end of the slide has a pad that adds extra friction and pops you up onto your feet to keep your momentum even after you exit the slide.

All in all, a 10/10 experience that I would happily do again, provided I was in a non-emergency situation.

[–] sndmn@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 year ago

I wonder if they let you climb back in for another go?

[–] Cap@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

If they had no hydraulics how did they deploy the landing gear? Can they be hand cranked into position? I really have no clue, just curious.

[–] NRoach44@lemmy.ml 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Landing gears are usually designed to drop by gravity (or manual hand cranking) alone if there's a hydraulic failure.

[–] Cap@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago

@NRoach44 You win again, gravity!

@MicroWave

[–] afk_strats@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

A lot of Airbus's landing gear has the unique "feature" of being gravity-lowered. So they work without hydraulics.

[–] Cobrachicken@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Nice caption "From plane to plough"

[–] originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

no chinese knockoff parts yet?

[–] zoe@infosec.pub 1 points 1 year ago

no the chinese are busy discovering the next quantum computer after the semiconductor sanctions