Military Review

How long would Russia be foolish to lose its planes?

158
In my last article "How military aviation works" I touched upon the issues of the conceptual and technological lag of Russia in some issues of servicing the combat aviation.


This article will focus on another area in which our country would not hurt to catch up with the pace of growth. Since the backlog is associated not only with the loss of aviation efficiency, but also with non-combat losses of expensive equipment, as well as with the death of pilots.

Relevance of the problem


As usual, before starting to discuss the main topic, a little “checkmate. parts ".

So let's imagine the situation. The airplane makes a regular landing. At the moment the rear struts touch the strip, it has kinetic energy equal to the product of mass by the square of the speed, divided in half. And in order to stop, he has a limited distance - the length of the runway. In what ways can you do this at all?

Classically, there are three of them: aerodynamic, reverse thrust, wheel braking.

In the case of combat aircraft, thrust reverse is not applied. There are two left.

Aerodynamic - brake parachute, brake flaps and wing mechanization. In this case, kinetic energy is spent to overcome the air resistance force.


Landing with the brake flap extended. Photo: Dmitry A. Mottl, wikipedia.org

Wheel braking - the familiar scheme, when kinetic energy is converted into heat in friction pairs (disc / pad, runway / tire surface).

The first thing a pilot does to brake is to use a braking parachute. At the very beginning of braking, the parachute is much more efficient and safer than the wheels. Why it happens?

First, the braking force of the parachute system depends on the speed of movement, and at the beginning of the strip it is maximum.

Secondly, the parachute braking force does not depend on the coefficient of friction between the wheel and the surface. The coefficient may vary depending on the quality of the strip or the presence of precipitation.

Thirdly, the parachute provides maximum stability at high speeds, since the vector of the braking force is directed along the axis of the aircraft movement. This means that when braking in this way, skidding or skidding is impossible. What makes parachute systems indispensable on ice airfields and / or poorly covered areas.

Thus, at the outset, the pilot can rely mainly on the braking parachute.

Can the brakes be used at the start?

It is extremely undesirable to do this, and for the following reasons:

1) Brakes at the initial stage are ineffective, since the friction force of the wheels on the coating is equal to the product of the friction coefficient and the reaction force of the support. At the beginning of the runway, the aircraft's speed is maximum, and the lift continues to act on the wing. This means that the force with which the plane acts on the coating increases gradually as the speed decreases. Thus, in the initial phase it is very easy to lock the wheels and lose the ability to fly the aircraft at high speed.

2) Ahead of us is a stage when the parachute will become ineffective and we will have to rely only on wheel braking. It will be bad if the brakes are already overheated by this point. Overuse of the brakes in this way can lead to brake failure.

Why can't wheel braking be effective?


Let's look at the physics of the process and understand what can become the limiting link. Let's analyze the wheel-surface friction pair. It all depends on the coefficient of friction, that is, on the condition of the coating surface. If there is water or dust on it, no matter how powerful the brakes themselves, the "bottleneck" of the brake system, which determines its overall efficiency, will be the coefficient of friction. And if it is low, then the wheels will simply slide over the surface.

The second limitation is the brakes themselves.

And there is a nuance here. When braking occurs, the inertial force pulls the aircraft's mass forward. And the load is shifted from the rear axles to the front. It would seem that this is a plus, since the force of wheel pressure on the surface increases, which means that grip improves. And we can slow down more effectively. Moreover, the effect is the greater, the higher the center of gravity, and the airplane has a high one.

But another problem arises here. The fact is that in this case the load on the braking system of the front landing gear increases.

For the same reason, cars are equipped with more powerful brakes in the front than in the rear. But unlike a car, an airplane has 1 rack in front, not 2, and the dimensions of the wheels themselves do not allow increasing the size of the brakes.

Another factor limiting the braking force is the increased tendency of the aircraft to skid, skid and overturn. This is due to the multiplying effect of the combination of a high center of mass, its distribution and geometry (only 1 wheel in front). As a result, if you slow down too actively, the plane can be trivially either sideways from the runway and turn around.

A partial solution to this problem is the installation of systems like civilian versions of ABS and ESP. The electronics receive data on the speed of rotation of the wheels when the landing gear is compressed and adjusts the braking forces in such a way as to try to keep the plane on a straight line. However, the presence of this system does not guarantee a successful outcome, but only reduces the likelihood of skidding.


Anti-skid automation sensor. Source: airliners.net

In addition, the presence of this effect completely deprives the idea of ​​increasing braking performance by placing larger wheels with massive brakes in front.

Intermediate conclusions


Initially, it might have seemed to the layman that the issue of braking on the lane for aviation had long been resolved. And that the system has a large margin of safety due to the fact that one type of braking duplicates another.

But this is far from the case. In reality, parachute and wheel braking systems do not duplicate each other at all, but rather complement each other. Thus, the risks are potentially cumulative rather than subtracted. In view of the fact that for a dangerous situation to arise, it is enough that only one of the two systems fails. Moreover, the greatest danger is the failure of the parachute system.

Now let's look at situations in which something can go wrong.

1 script


Landing is performed normally after the completion of the flight mission. The struts touch the surface of the runway, the pilot activates the parachute, but a failure occurs. The aircraft continues to move along the strip without the ability to activate the parachute braking system. The further development of events depends on a number of factors, but in order not to unnecessarily complicate the article, we will consider the option to which the situation will be reduced in 9 cases out of 10: the pilot will try to brake with his wheels in the remaining section. Whether it is possible to stop or not depends on the length of a particular runway, as well as on the agility of the pilot, that is, how quickly he was able to navigate the situation. And on how well he went to the landing itself (withstood the glide path, speed).

Such a situation can end with a departure from the runway to the side or rolling out of the runway with various consequences (ranging from a relatively safe stop outside of it and ending with a coup, destruction of the aircraft and the death of the crew).

The video below captures the moment when the plane “loses” the braking parachute right in the air. Have to sit down without him.


2 script


More dramatic and dangerous. Engine failure occurs during the takeoff run. The pilot must immediately react and make a decision: to continue takeoff or to interrupt. The choice is complicated by the fact that every second the braking distance is reduced by 60-100 meters. It should be noted right away that if there was a guarantee that the plane could stop, the pilot would not have to make a choice. After all, there is only one rational decision - to interrupt takeoff. But it is the inability to stop within the remaining runway that may force the pilot to continue.

Alas, there is no way to protect against engine failures during takeoff. The most common cause is the ingress of foreign objects into the engine. For example, birds. It is also possible that debris may enter. Or a banal technical failure.

The problem of failures during takeoff is relevant for all types of aircraft. But the larger and heavier the plane, the higher the risks.

Now we have smoothly approached the main topic - modern technical solutions that exist in the world to minimize the risks of flight accidents and reduce the severity of their consequences.

Solution 1 - EMAS


The most obvious is end safety strips... Of course, they are provided for at our airfields, only they are not very effective in the form we have.

The solution to the problem was found long ago and was massively implemented back in the Formula 1 series races. We are talking about "security traps". In dangerous bends, an area filled with viscous material is located. A car that has lost control, flying off the track, gets stuck in such a surface and effectively dampens its speed.

The evolution of this idea comes down to the selection of materials with very specific properties. The safety end should be based on a level and safe area. The material itself is laid on top of this area in layers of different heights. When an aircraft hits it, the material should crumble or elastically deform. At the same time, at the design stage, all parameters must be calculated in such a way that braking is carried out efficiently, but at the same time safely.


The advantage is also that the rear landing gear is more massive, and braking due to material deformation is not associated with a change in the aircraft's center of gravity. Due to this, falling into such a trap, the rear pillars are involved in work an order of magnitude more efficiently than with standard braking, which (in addition to a significant increase in performance) completely eliminates skidding.

The benefits include the lack of system maintenance.

The photo below demonstrates what a modern Feng Shui safety strip should look like.

How long would Russia be foolish to lose its planes?

An example of the real work of such a system can be seen in the video:


And this is what the safety strip looks like here. And what does it lead to.


Source: igor113.livejournal.com

Parachute failure occurred during landing. The plane rolled off the runway. But as we can see, the end lane in the form in which it is, could not provide security. It was lucky that the crew survived.

Solution 2 - aerodrome braking systems


Another solution that developed in our country, but did not find widespread use, is braking the aircraft with a cable according to the principle of devices on an aircraft carrier. In Western terminology, this is called AS (Arresting System).

Maybe not everyone knows that many aircraft in NATO are equipped with a lightweight version of the brake hook - the Schaffer's hook.

So how did NATO come to the point of installing a hook on non-deck fighters for some reason?

Initially, a request from the US military departments was to create systems that would allow light aircraft to be based on pre-fabricated sites. Indeed, for takeoff on afterburner, aircraft are enough up to 500 meters (the MiG-29 can take off from 300), but for landing it is necessary already under 1000.

The task was set, and the industry presented several technical solutions that differ from each other in terms of size, weight, ease of installation and principles of energy absorption.

And everything that happened next can be described with the phrase: "The road will be mastered by the walker".

If you move slowly in one direction step by step, the results can be amazing.

At first glance, the decision to use a brake cable at a fixed airfield may seem overly complicated.

The first expected issue is service. The second is pilot training. But it turned out that both of these problems can be easily solved.

Solution to the first problem


Testing prototypes, the Americans were convinced that in the presence of a 500-meter runway, the overload during braking was 3 times less than on an aircraft carrier, where the plane had to stop at a section of 160 meters. This makes it possible to significantly reduce the loads both on the brake hook, which as a result received a simplified configuration, and on all ground-based nodes - they did not require such frequent replacement as on an aircraft carrier.

Solving the second problem


It turned out that the plane can grab the cable by driving over it with its wheels. This made the landing similar to the usual one with all the consequences - it made it possible to use it by ordinary pilots with a minimum extra. preparation.

This is how it looks in the end:


How is this fit different from the usual one? Practically nothing.

The fact is that the parachute system has one more nuance, which I did not mention. For a safe landing, a part of the runway is inevitably "eaten" for holding, lowering the front pillar, opening the container and opening the parachute system (2-3 seconds only for opening the parachutes). During this time, the plane manages to fly and travel a significant distance from 200 to 500 meters. In theory, you can sit down and "faster", but the safety of the operation is reduced and the complexity increases.

Note. At different times, various parachute braking systems were tested and applied: multi-dome and multi-part. In particular, there were variants of the so-called "approach" parachute. This is a parachute with a small area, which opened even before the strips touched the strip.

In the case of the braking system, everything is the same. After the plane has lowered the strut, the pilot only needs to check the fact of the hook - if it did not happen, activate the parachute.

So what does such a system give us as a result?


1) The most important thing that such a system gives is safety. One more method of braking is added, and one that alone will completely stop the plane without activating the brakes and parachute. Although it is not excluded and slight wheel braking in the process.

2) In addition, it also saves time on aircraft maintenance, reduces costs and increases the rate of combat missions.

Let us dwell on the second point in more detail.

The fact is that in the event of activation, the system does not activate either the parachute or the brakes in the chassis. This means that there is no need to pack and re-position the parachute. In the case of the Su-25, it is small. But for the Su-34, the procedure becomes much more labor-intensive. And this can become a problem for an operational airfield at moments of maximum intensity of sorties.

As far as the brakes are concerned, you might think this is a minor detail. However, we are talking about high-performance systems that cost a lot of money.

The aerodrome system for dissipating energy can use ordinary water as a working fluid. And its maintenance is much less laborious - the same Su-34 has six wheels, each of which has a complex braking system.


Modern aircraft braking system

These installations continue to be improved to this day. At the conceptual level, the idea of ​​creating a computerized "smart" braking system is considered, which will be able to measure the speed of an aircraft and select the braking force required for the most efficient operation with this particular aircraft.

Separate nodes are also constantly being improved - for example, for co-based airfields, options are proposed when the cable can be "hidden" in a special technological furrow.


Source: aviapanorama.ru

Also, these machines can be installed not only as elements of the main braking method, but also as safety nets in front of the end safety strip, complementing it and making the whole system even safer.


Source: atecharrestors.com

The following shows how the stationary system is organized at the air base.


I would like to separately mention one of the concepts.


Here is a diagram of the connection of installations for braking heavier aircraft in two stages: first and second stage brake - 1 and 2 stages of braking mechanisms. First, the first brake system is activated, then the second is connected to it.

But all this is still only at the level of concepts.

Installation of installations


A small reference to the previous article regarding the technological and conceptual lag in aircraft maintenance.

Installation of braking systems involves the installation of special wedges in the ground, to which the installation itself is anchored. This stage in theory requires a lot of labor, but here is how this issue is solved in the case when sufficient attention is paid to the maintenance issue:


Accident


So, back to the incident, the result of which is captured on the cover of this article.

Here's how it went:


The cadet did not perform leveling and the landing speed at the end of the runway was significantly exceeded. The landing speed of the Su-27 is 240 km / h. Even if the similar figure for the Su-34 is slightly higher (in the region of 270 km / h), then in the video the speed at the end of the strip at some point was 360 km / h.

This alone was enough to make the decision to go around. Especially for the cadet - additional training, he is there for this.

However, the crew in this regard did nothing fundamentally new or outstanding. According to the international organization for the safety of air travel, 80% of incidents occurring during landing can be resolved by a timely go-around. That is, this "human error" is not an unforeseen factor, but rather a pattern due to the peculiarity of the functioning of our brain.

The first reason - a go-around is perceived as an admission of their weakness, inability to land the first time.

The second reason is that a person in a stressful situation desperately wants to resolve this situation, to stay on the ground. This leads to ignoring the real risks and landing "by all means".

There are other aspects that affect our psyche, but now not about that.

It is important that such situations cannot be "stupidly" attributed to individual people - they are systemic. And they will repeat themselves.

And the task of engineers is reduced to the development of technical means that will maximally insure the pilots from their own mistakes.

All the systems listed in the article could easily prevent this (and similar) incidents.

conclusions


At a time when military parades and forums "Army" are held with pomp, to which guests from Turkey (aerobatic team "Turkish Stars") come with their mobile brake machines BAK-12 to ensure their safety in the conditions of demonstration performances, our pilots continue to die in combat conditions due to rolling out of the runway.

In the photo below, the planes of the Turkish "aerobatics" - clearly visible Schaeffer's hook on the belly.


Source: aerobaticteams.net

The incident with the death of Russian pilots in Syria was covered in the media as modestly as possible. No photo or video footage.

Dry statement of facts:

On October 10 (2017), during the takeoff acceleration from the Khmeimim airfield (Syria), the Su-24 aircraft collapsed to carry out a combat mission. The aircraft crew did not have time to eject and died.

Again, such incidents have always happened and will always happen. The only question is what our country has "prepared for the war."

And just like in the last article, we are not talking about some "super-high-tech" technical solutions like satellite reconnaissance systems or sonar stations for submarines. By themselves, some decisions are very primitive.

Yes, and there is someone to "write off" - all the work has already been done overseas and have chosen the most rational solutions.

What is the problem is not clear.

In Russia, according to the above-described scenarios, airplanes regularly “fight”.

In Komsomolsk-on-Amur, tests of one of the prototypes of the promising Russian Su-35 fighter ended in failure. On Sunday, April 26, the plane skidded off the runway and collided with an obstacle. As a result of the accident, the fighter collapsed and burned down. Test pilot Evgeny Frolov managed to eject at the last moment.

Thus, the prototype was destroyed. This led to the whole process stalled for a year. So also, due to their fault, the test pilot almost died.

New Su-34s with almost "full" service life have also fought several times.

His history Larger aircraft, Tu-22, also have rollouts.

June 16, 2016. Isle. Pskov region.


Source: (c) forums.airforce.ru

September 12, 2017. Tu-22M3 (tail number "20 red", registration number RF-94233). Shaikovka. Kaluga region.


Source: Photo (c) Military Informant, vk.com/milinfolive

However, there are even larger Tu-160 aircraft, military transport aircraft, tankers and AWACS in our VKS.

The question arises: "What has been done to prevent accidents, for example, with the Tu-160 at their main base?"


The total length of the strip of 3,5 km, together with 2 safety sections, is 3,65 km, that is, the section on each side has a length of fantastic 70 meters.

At the same time in the USA. Minot. North Dakota.


The scale of the safety strips relative to the "take-off" itself is striking - each 300 meters long.

And here I am interested in asking a question. In the comments to the previous topic, they mentioned the existence of formal rules in our aviation.

This length is 75 meters for an airplane 50 meters long ... Was it chosen for what reasons? Minimum compliance with the rules out of touch with reality?

Given that the total length of the strip in the United States is 4,6 km.

And this is what the modernized safety strip at Northolt (UK) looks like:


Source: twitter.com/rafnortholt

Although it is fair to say that these measures are not always enough. So, for example, in 2017, after being attacked by a suicide pigeon, the B-52 interrupted takeoff and rolled out of the runway. The crew was evacuated, but the firefighters were unable to approach fast enough and the plane burned down.

PS


Since the article deals with the Su-34 accident, I would like to discuss the points of view regarding the degree of guilt in the incident of all the defendants - the cadet, the instructor, the flight director.

As for me, the manager mistakenly did not give instructions to make another run.

The instructor, on the other hand, clearly irritated the cadet and, in fact, forced him to sit down with his comments. That is, the instructor gets two "failures" at once: for the lack of teamwork with the student and for the wrong decision ("low throttle" instead of "takeoff").

One of the advantages of a double cab (at least of those that have been announced) is the ability to feel the "shoulder" of a comrade, and not listen to "swearing".

In my opinion, the actions of this instructor are much more professional:


The cadet trusts him and has the opportunity to laugh at himself, and laughter is a very good way to relieve psychological stress in a stressful situation. The intonation and gestures are somewhat calming.

But maybe I'm wrong?

It is interesting to listen to those who flew.
Author:
158 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. tihonmarine
    tihonmarine 14 December 2020 10: 11
    +21
    Thanks to the author, the article is interesting for me as an amateur, and the site pilots will give estimates.
    1. Alexander Vorontsov
      14 December 2020 10: 31
      +25
      Quote: tihonmarine
      Thanks to the author, the article is interesting for me as an amateur, and the site pilots will give estimates.

      I am glad)
      I tried to specially choose an unused topic.
      1. ancient
        ancient 14 December 2020 11: 58
        +13
        Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
        I tried to specially choose an unused topic.

        1.TP in Buturlinovka on the Su-34 was released ... COMPLETELY ... but ... VERY late ... (if you carefully watched the "movie", you can see that the touch was made with a "fucking" flight ... runway center)
        2. The parachute is released only after lowering the front landing gear and when the aircraft is aligned in the "centerline" direction on the runway (we do not take into account the "show" of test pilots and aerobatic pilots).
        3. If you listen carefully to the "recording of the negotiations, then the report of the PRP at the PKP" .. Both domes have come out "is clearly audible.
        4. If they hadn't pulled the "starting" one ... they would have rolled out in a straight line without any nosing (and pulled the "starting" one right before rolling out from the runway.
        In the photo, both domes are hanging - one on the right plane, the other hanging from the stabilizer, both open.

        Well, the broken pneumatics of the right MAIN landing gear strut (and not the rear ... as you have ... the rear struts are either "dutik", or a controlled rear wheel (Li-2), or a "safety strut (IL-62) ...
        1. Doctor
          Doctor 14 December 2020 12: 31
          +3
          1.TP in Buturlinovka on the Su-34 was released ... COMPLETELY ... but ... VERY late ... (if you carefully watched the "movie", you can see that the touch was made with a "fucking" flight ... runway center)

          This is yes. And in general, the call. The cadet is completely raw.
          Change the training system drastically. They should fly from the 1st year at Cesna, feel the air.

          4. If they hadn't pulled the "starting" one ... they would have rolled out in a straight line without any nosing (and pulled the "starting" one right before rolling out from the runway.

          And if there were a "hook", they would be killed. wink
          1. ancient
            ancient 14 December 2020 12: 36
            +10
            Quote: Arzt
            And in general, the call. The cadet is completely raw.

            The standard mistake of young people is ..... dropped the instruments .. and began to "catch" the runway with his eyes on the landing, "yulozil" with his nose like .... a bull ... "pissed" .. generally keep quiet about the speed .... from the glide path jumped out in general (for the sector) ... well, and as a result .... "end" with a height of a 5-storey building and at a speed of separation wassat
            About the instructor ... there are no normal words soldier ... already from the neighbor there should have been a departure for the 2nd circle.
        2. Alexander Vorontsov
          14 December 2020 13: 18
          +3
          Quote: ancient
          2. The parachute is released only after lowering the front landing gear and when the aircraft is aligned in the "centerline" direction on the runway (we do not take into account the "show" of test pilots and aerobatic pilots).

          I mean, technically it should be like this or according to the rules?
          I initially thought that in a similar way as in the civilian, there, before the front pillar is not crimped, the reverse will not turn on and mechanization will not take some positions.

          But I came across photographs where the parachute came out straight almost in flight.
          Here, for example, it has not been omitted yet. Those. This is probably the same "window dressing" but technically on the plane there is no limit when to release?



          I'm just wondering why he didn't come out right away.
          At the beginning, more precisely in the middle of the strip))) he said that "I did not come out."
          Maybe because the speed was too high, the limitation worked?
          1. ancient
            ancient 14 December 2020 14: 39
            +5
            Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
            I mean, technically it should be like this or according to the rules?

            "Technically" this is the release of TP during takeoff (failure of one or two engines) not less than 7 seconds after removal from afterburner operation.
            On landing, I already wrote .... after lowering the A-pillar (this is both for safety rules and in accordance with the instructions in the Airplane Flight Manual section).
            If, with a normal crosswind and not lowering the front leg, release the TP ... it can be carried from the strip to ....... well, then you know wink
            Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
            but the likeness of the one in the civil,

            We have a little not so, because. the reverse is not observed as such (except on VTA aircraft).
            And all limit switches are mainly brought to the main landing gear, for example, on the Su-27 there were as many as 6 accidents and disasters during takeoff when the cleaning of the "mesh" of the ZU VZ was triggered immediately after unloading the front pillar, since everything that was "pneumon" of the front pillar, breaking away from the strip , "Throws" pebbles, concrete crumbs into the air from concrete, ice in winter, etc.
          2. ancient
            ancient 14 December 2020 15: 02
            +5
            Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
            But I came across photographs where the parachute came out straight almost in flight.

            On some types in the RLE, the use of TP is recommended as an anti-lock agent.
            If the release of TP before touching is deliberate wink and at a height of about 1-2 meters above the end .. this is normal and .. beautiful ... but if it comes out unexpectedly, the K3-63 will write such ny on landing that you will have a parsing ... " view and pasta walk wassat"



            and so on ..
            Well, the testers can and .. "cooler", as it is spelled out in the "topic of LI".

          3. ancient
            ancient 14 December 2020 15: 15
            +5
            Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
            I'm just wondering why he didn't come out right away.
            At the beginning, more precisely in the middle of the strip))) he said that "I did not come out."

            Probably confused and ... forgot where the TP release button is wink
            There are no restrictions on the release at the high-speed head (except that at a speed of more than 450 it can simply tear it off). wink
        3. Pete mitchell
          Pete mitchell 14 December 2020 15: 07
          +6
          hi
          Quote: ancient
          but ... VERY late ..

          In addition to technical aspects, it is necessary to change go-around culture: did not meet the required parameters - if you please leave and repeat. But this is more about the bosses - they also need to change their attitude.
          As comrades bourgeois say: landing is possible, but go-around is required, landing is optional, go around is mandatory
          1. ancient
            ancient 14 December 2020 15: 35
            +3
            Quote: Pete Mitchell
            As the bourgeois comrades say: landing is possible, but go-around is mandatory, landing is optional, go around is mandatory

            Golden words good drinks
            Quote: Pete Mitchell
            did not meet the required parameters - if you please leave and repeat. But this is more about the bosses - they also need to change their attitude.

            But here's what is strange ... in all my "conscious" life ... never and nowhere did I "meet" that would somehow be punished or biased for leaving for the 2nd circle request
            At the performance, they hammered in like nails - "... high" - on the 2nd circle, "quickly" - on the 2nd circle .. "I got to my friends" - don't break, but go to the second circle .. well, etc. etc.
            1. Pete mitchell
              Pete mitchell 14 December 2020 16: 45
              +6
              Quote: ancient
              .... never and nowhere "met" that would somehow be punished or biased for leaving for the 2nd circle request

              That's just the point: from the first days - going around is a correct and safe decision ... Civilians are now being punished for failure, leaving often does not even understand, left and left
        4. Mik13
          Mik13 14 December 2020 15: 31
          +3
          Quote: ancient
          1.TP in Buturlinovka on the Su-34 was released / ..


          Someone leaked a video from the office of this flight. There the trainee sat down with an excess, at the end of the lane tried to turn onto the taxiway to the right, not listening to the instructor's command "roll out in a straight line." The result is predictable, but sad.



          Actually, this is it.
          Caution, there is specific aviation terminology at the end of the video.

          So the end safety lane would not have saved him. He would have flown out sideways at her.
          1. ancient
            ancient 14 December 2020 16: 41
            +6
            Quote: Mik13
            There the student sat down with an excess

            Only with flight (practically in front of the runway center)
            Quote: Mik13
            at the end of the runway, he tried to turn right onto the taxiway, not listening to the instructor's command "roll out in a straight line."

            He only turned into the left taxiway, and therefore rolled over the starboard side wink
            Quote: Mik13
            The result is predictable, but sad.

            Absolutely ... on the Tu-22M3 in ....... one deputy. the squadron commander sat down at real 80x1200 with the right suspension, rain, wet streak, calculation> 500 (the lane was still 2850 then).
            At a speed of 120 km / h, I tried to turn into the left taxiway .... I skidded and jumped onto the KBP, broke the right pillar and lay down on my belly ... the rocket and the plane were written off ...
            1. ancient
              ancient 14 December 2020 16: 45
              +3
              Quote: ancient
              , broke the right pillar and lay on his belly ... the rocket and the plane were written off ...

              Almost like in this case:
            2. Mik13
              Mik13 14 December 2020 20: 18
              +2
              Quote: ancient
              He only turned into the left taxiway, and therefore rolled over the starboard side

              I also used to think it was to the left. And then I saw a photo of this event in this article - a top view. So - there is no taxiway to the left. Only to the right. So it looks like he was going to turn from the end somewhere. Or drift.

              1. ancient
                ancient 15 December 2020 12: 03
                +2
                Quote: Mik13
                So - there is no taxiway to the left. Only to the right. So it looks like he was going to turn from the butt somewhere.

                Well then, there is only one option ... just in front of the end, he and "grabbed" the "starting brake" and as a result .... instant destruction of pneumatics and ... a coup.
                It's like on an SUV ... the center of gravity is high and for any maneuvering along the course it is easy to do a few barrels ... wassat
          2. Nasty
            Nasty 15 December 2020 03: 59
            +4
            There, immediately from the beginning of the video, a non-landing position. I already crossed myself. High and fast. 100% second try. And where the "instructor" shouts at low throttle, it was necessary to give the afterburner and go to the 2nd circle. Everything was fixable.
        5. yehat2
          yehat2 15 December 2020 15: 26
          +2
          How would you comment on the approach?
          I have a flight time of only 15 minutes on an-2 and about 200 hours on simulators, about 150 virtual landings - but even I understand that the maneuver was performed openly carelessly and generally disgusting.
          even a beginner understands, then sitting down in this situation is stupidly risky.
          So why did these would-be pilots sit down, after all, they were taught something, including TB flights.
          If I were in the flight director's place, after this I would write off the fuck about them, because this crumpled car will not be the only one on the list of such a pilot.
          It is clear that it is necessary to improve safety and we traditionally like to save on it and on the infrastructure of airfields in general, but you have to demand basic things from pilots.
          If you look back at the latest landing accidents, both military and civil, there are quite a few violations of basic instructions, nothing magical.
          I don’t know, pilots are required to be bold, but personally I like the paranoid caution better when it comes to landings and other potentially dangerous technical maneuvers.
      2. ancient
        ancient 14 December 2020 16: 27
        +7
        Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
        I tried to specially choose an unused topic.

        Alexander, by the way, completely forgot to note .... for the Tu-22 and Tu-22M the problem of rolling out at a speed of> 280 with a weight of> 110 tons and 300 with a weight of <110 tons ... there was always ... no CPB and ATU will save ... only a strip of 3,5 or more. soldier
        1. Gogia
          Gogia 16 December 2020 22: 08
          +2
          So, damn it, there is not enough concrete in the country? Can't lengthen stripes on bases?
    2. Civil
      Civil 14 December 2020 11: 47
      +3
      Quote: tihonmarine
      Thanks to the author, the article is interesting for me as an amateur, and the site pilots will give estimates.

      Likewise, I respect the author for the detailed analysis.
      1. Genry
        Genry 14 December 2020 13: 36
        +4
        Quote: Civil
        Respect to the author for the detailed analysis.

        This analysis is for the sofa experts.
        For professionals, he is for a laugh.
  2. Doctor
    Doctor 14 December 2020 10: 31
    +2
    At the initial stage, the brakes are ineffective, since the friction force of the wheels on the coating is equal to the product of the friction coefficient and the reaction force of the support.


    From Ershov's book "The Revelations of a Sled Dog", chapter "Ice condition."

  3. Avior
    Avior 14 December 2020 10: 37
    +1
    the braking force of the parachute system depends on the speed of movement, and at the beginning of the strip it is maximum.

    depends not on the speed, but on the square of the speed.
    That is, when the speed is reduced by half, the braking force drops by four. Therefore, the parachute is most effective at high speed.
    At the beginning of the runway, the aircraft's speed is maximum, the lift continues to act on the wing.

    How to put the flaps. you can also press the plane to the runway.
  4. paco.soto
    paco.soto 14 December 2020 10: 39
    +8
    The case when I read the material with interest. Thanks to the author for this work.
  5. KVU-NSVD
    KVU-NSVD 14 December 2020 10: 42
    +1
    All of the above is correct - safety comes first. And what about the redeployment (dispersal) of aviation during a threatened period from the territory of large air bases to field and small airfields. Can't you quickly re-equip them or are there fast-assembled and easily transportable analogues of the systems described above?
    1. Alexander Vorontsov
      14 December 2020 10: 45
      +6
      Quote: KVU-NSVD
      All of the above is correct - safety comes first. And what about the redeployment (dispersal) of aviation during a threatened period from the territory of large air bases to field and small airfields. Can't you quickly re-equip them or are there fast-assembled and easily transportable analogues of the systems described above?

      Yes of course. It all began with mobile systems.
  6. bober1982
    bober1982 14 December 2020 10: 44
    -8
    You can fucking be, no offense to the author will be told.
    Such pile up.
    1. novel66
      novel66 14 December 2020 11: 12
      +5
      like
      rear pillars

      the main ones are stands, the main ones ...
  7. Avior
    Avior 14 December 2020 10: 47
    +3
    In general, of course, both the hook and the safety net are very useful devices for flight safety.
    1. Doctor
      Doctor 14 December 2020 12: 39
      +1
      In general, of course, both the hook and the safety net are very useful devices for flight safety.

      Too much crap. It is enough to make normal limit switches, we have enough land, build at least half a kilometer.
      And at training aerodromes and the length and width of the runway to the maximum. In the same Buturlinovka 2,45 seems to be a strip.
      1. ccsr
        ccsr 14 December 2020 12: 56
        +4
        Quote: Arzt
        Too much crap. It is enough to make normal limit switches, we have enough land, build at least half a kilometer.

        So I think that given the enormous cost of the aircraft, the time has come for the modernization of airfields and, first of all, for lengthening the runway. This is not possible everywhere, but we are not so poor as to save on this, which means that specialists will find a solution. As a rule, the departure from the runway is often carried out for several tens or hundreds of meters, i.e. the main speed is canceled, that's why it is possible to increase the length of the strip with less costs, since it can be made less durable. Regarding air protection and nets, our climate is a serious obstacle for such systems, I think, although we can work on this too. But it's better to increase the bandwidth - this is obvious.
        1. bober1982
          bober1982 14 December 2020 13: 01
          -3
          Quote: ccsr
          But it's better to build up the streak - it's obvious

          How long? Maybe increase the width?
          1. ccsr
            ccsr 14 December 2020 13: 08
            +3
            Quote: bober1982
            How long? Maybe increase the width?

            Airplane designers know better than me how much it is necessary to lengthen for a guaranteed stop, but purely speculative, I assume that an elongation in the range from 500 to 1000 meters per cent by 80-90 will reduce the accident rate in such situations. You know better about the width - you must have flown, since it occurred to you ...
            1. bober1982
              bober1982 14 December 2020 13: 14
              +1
              Quote: ccsr
              I suppose that an elongation in the range from 500 to 1000 meters per cent by 80-90 will reduce the accident rate in such situations

              But, after all, if you widen the runway in width, the accident rate will also decrease.
              It's up to the airplane designers!
              1. ccsr
                ccsr 14 December 2020 13: 23
                +3
                Quote: bober1982
                It's up to the airplane designers!

                No, not behind them - they can only issue technical recommendations. But the decision will be made by the operating organizations of the Ministry of Defense, i.e. the leadership of the VKS, because they must calculate the cost of such a modernization, what it will result in, at least in terms of financial costs. So the problem here is somewhat deeper - the military will be faced with a dilemma, either we reduce the purchase of aircraft and increase the runways for at least five to ten years, or we buy planes in the same quantities, but lose them from plane crashes, including due to rolling out of the runway. Whose point of view will win, I do not know, but perhaps everything will remain as before, because it is easier to blame everything on the human factor.
                1. Pete mitchell
                  Pete mitchell 15 December 2020 01: 27
                  +2
                  Quote: ccsr
                  perhaps everything will remain as before, because it is easier to blame everything on the human factor.

                  Here, the most financially effective way to reduce accidents is to work with the notorious human factor: not so expensive, but will have to be broken. It's time to see how civilians cope with this, just look for examples somewhere, from specialists wink
          2. Doctor
            Doctor 14 December 2020 13: 17
            +2
            How long? Maybe increase the width?

            Up to 3,5 km. Wide training is unique. And not only. Two stripes at least at an angle, taking into account the wind rose.
            It will be cheaper if you remember how many runways have been buried since the time of the Union. Marshal Efimov seems to have recalled that when he was fired, he left about 1400 airfields to his replacement.

            Waugh, for example Altus in Oklahoma, is one of the airbases of the US Air Training Command 19 AF AF. Runway 4,4 km, terminal 300 m each.



            And this is Buturlinovka.

            1. bober1982
              bober1982 14 December 2020 13: 39
              -2
              Quote: Arzt
              And not only. Two stripes at least at an angle, taking into account the wind rose.

              Why is that? How will the accident rate decrease?
              1. Doctor
                Doctor 14 December 2020 13: 57
                +4
                Why is that? How will the accident rate decrease?

                When planning flights, enter the runway where the crosswind is less on that day (or even hour).
                1. bober1982
                  bober1982 14 December 2020 14: 05
                  0
                  Quote: Arzt
                  When planning flights, enter the runway where on this day (or even an hour) the crosswind is less

                  And, if - three runways at an angle, thus the accident rate will decrease even more.
                  After all, you yourself said ....... at least two stripes at an angle.
                  The crosswind, this is such disgusting, can change, but not to run during flights from one lane at an angle to another lane at an angle. It will not be safe.
                  1. Doctor
                    Doctor 14 December 2020 14: 21
                    +2
                    And, if - three runways at an angle, thus the accident rate will decrease even more.
                    After all, you yourself said ....... at least two stripes at an angle.
                    The crosswind, this is such disgusting, can change, but not to run during flights from one lane at an angle to another lane at an angle. It will not be safe.

                    For an ordinary military man, two are a lot, but for a training one, quite.
                    Three is overkill, although there are more.

                    Oh Hara, Chicago.



                    The band can be changed in the process.
                    But the organization of flights, of course, should be at the highest level. wink
                    1. bober1982
                      bober1982 14 December 2020 14: 26
                      +3
                      I agree that the organization of flights should be at the highest level, golden words.
                  2. Kamchatsky
                    Kamchatsky 15 December 2020 01: 27
                    +1
                    At the flight school, when performing the PSP on the An-2, I took off with one course, at this time the breeze turned and the RP changed the start. I went without a descent, sat down with a new course and went to hand out departures.
              2. yehat2
                yehat2 15 December 2020 15: 32
                +1
                Quote: bober1982
                Quote: Arzt
                And not only. Two stripes at least at an angle, taking into account the wind rose.

                Why is that? How will the accident rate decrease?

                so as not to land and take off with a crosswind.
        2. Bez 310
          Bez 310 14 December 2020 14: 08
          +5
          Quote: ccsr
          But it's better to increase the bandwidth - this is obvious.

          It will not save, the skill of our pilots is limitless!
          I personally observed the landing BEFORE the strip, followed by
          ROLLING OUT straight ahead. And this is on the 3400 band!
        3. zenion
          zenion 16 December 2020 19: 22
          -1
          ccsr (ccsr). Here the choice must be made. Build up the runway, or buy a yacht for my son. The strip is far away, and the son looks reproachfully into the eyes every day, the girl does not let ... live, the sea calls.
          1. ccsr
            ccsr 16 December 2020 19: 37
            +1
            Quote: zenion
            ccsr (ccsr). Here the choice must be made. Build up the runway, or buy a yacht for my son.

            You misjudge the situation, because there is a question of redistributing budgetary funds within the framework of annual expenses for aerospace forces in the Ministry of Defense itself. So there is no need to tie everything to yachts and girls - now the military is given enough money and they do not sit on a starvation diet. Those who served in the nineties know what it is, but you just don't know what it is.
  8. bober1982
    bober1982 14 December 2020 11: 05
    +2
    The very case when each new comment arouses genuine interest, like the article, by the way.
    Comrades, this is not a ladies' magazine.
  9. rocket757
    rocket757 14 December 2020 11: 06
    +1
    Sensible.
    To say that we have a PROBLEM of ensuring safety in emergency situations .... I can’t, not in the subject. As it is in aviation. But in my field, it was like this when tragedies happened ... for various reasons, but the initial technical miscalculations, flaws and so on WERE!
    1. bober1982
      bober1982 14 December 2020 11: 08
      -1
      Quote: rocket757
      Sensible.

      I would say not bad.
      The frost was growing stronger, the countess ran barefoot from the count's house with her hair down.
      1. rocket757
        rocket757 14 December 2020 11: 17
        +4
        Write yourself so that it would be smooth and understandable.
        The topic is interesting and important.
        It is written quite understandably for any technically trained specialist ...
        What else does?
  10. ANB
    ANB 14 December 2020 11: 07
    +1
    Perhaps such a device could have saved a burned-out superjet. Especially if there was still a safety lane.
    1. Mik13
      Mik13 14 December 2020 16: 14
      +3
      Quote: ANB
      Perhaps such a device could have saved the burned-out superjet.

      It couldn't. He did not roll out, there was a progressive goat with destruction.
      The Superjet could have been saved by the normal training of the pilot and the receipt by this pilot of sufficient practice of flying in emergency mode on this type.
      1. ANB
        ANB 14 December 2020 17: 53
        +3
        Yes. I thought and agree with you.
        Neither the phishiner nor the emergency lane can save you from this. It's just that one of the reasons for the accident rate is described in the article.
  11. Selevc
    Selevc 14 December 2020 11: 09
    +2
    The article is interesting, but in the main it is very naive ... It is rather naive to think that in Russia in the field of aviation control and support, something will drastically and fundamentally change ...
    It is impossible to remake a system that has developed evolutionarily over 100 years by applying separate half-measures - this requires draconian measures from above which are not expected ...

    It is impossible to radically change the entire management system, which pretends that everything is fine, but in fact everything relies on "Vanka with a crowbar and such and such a mother ..." ... But we have long entered the 21st century - into the century which technology and communications rule !!! It seems to me that this is poorly felt and understood at the very top of the Russian army. Window dressing is a long-standing problem for Russia and it must be treated according to Peter's method with a fist and a belt !!!
    1. yehat2
      yehat2 15 December 2020 15: 39
      +1
      it's not window dressing. I am sure that most leaders know for sure that there are problems with equipping literally every airfield. And there is just a game where everyone pretends that the problem does not exist. But in the end everything rests on the fact that the work of people, and sometimes the life of people, often highly qualified, is not appreciated. But if the command is regularly punished for such cases, for example, by the disappearance of buns during demobilization, and even there will be normal commissions for analysis and investigation, then the attitude will change dramatically. Maybe then the equipment of the aircraft will finally be properly updated and the standards for spare parts and maintenance will improve. What is happening now is a shit.
  12. Bez 310
    Bez 310 14 December 2020 11: 10
    +6
    Amateurs are so brave in their fantasies
    that specialists are simply taken aback.
    But arguing with amateurs is stupid, they are
    trust only themselves, Wikipedia, and Google.
  13. Sergey Valov
    Sergey Valov 14 December 2020 11: 18
    +4
    Dear author, you have a problem with terminology. Aircraft have always had nose, tail and MAIN landing gear.
    It is impractical to brake with wheels, first of all, due to the fact that the wear of the pneumatics increases sharply, in one landing you can completely burn it. On heavy aircraft, to preserve the rubber, the wheels are even pre-spun before landing.
    “Since the vector of the braking force is directed along the axis of motion of the aircraft” is not the case, braking with a parachute is more effective primarily due to the fact that the center of mass of the aircraft is located in front of the point of application of the braking force. Because of the same effect, braking by the A-pillar is the most dangerous.
    You can go on and on, but this is laziness debt.
    1. ancient
      ancient 14 December 2020 12: 19
      0
      Quote: Sergey Valov
      Because of the same effect, braking by the A-pillar is the most dangerous.

      And what types have we started to equip with front brake wheels or ... a wheel? belay
      Well, for one thing ... how does the "braking" of the A-pillar take place? wink
      1. Sergey Valov
        Sergey Valov 14 December 2020 15: 03
        0
        The question is not the right one, I answered "the load on the braking system of the front landing gear is increasing."
        1. ancient
          ancient 14 December 2020 15: 29
          +2
          Quote: Sergey Valov
          I answered "the load on the braking system of the front landing gear increases."

          Well, let's paraphrase it differently .... how can the load on the front pillar arise or increase if a priori the brake system and brakes on it (on the rack) are absent? wink
          1. Sergey Valov
            Sergey Valov 14 December 2020 15: 39
            +2
            Again, the question is at the wrong place. I wrote about the PRINCIPLE of the brake system.
            1. ancient
              ancient 14 December 2020 16: 19
              +1
              Quote: Sergey Valov
              I wrote about the PRINCIPLE of the brake system.

              Well then .. "go" wink drinks
  14. Desperado
    Desperado 14 December 2020 11: 36
    +2
    I listened to both tracks of negotiations, what can I say. The instructor's skill is evident, as well as its result. The eternal problem of Russia, saving on everything: on the training of instructors, technology, flight safety, runway equipment. Why do we need any security zones, and so it will do. And it comes off, in the form of payment with lives and technology. They will find the extreme ones, insert "caps", write "circulars", acquaint them with them, and that's it, until next time. Change something globally, why? It's "expensive" ...
    1. Imobile
      Imobile 14 December 2020 12: 49
      -3
      It starts with a lack of ability to talk to people. It was as if our instructors had grazed the rams before and hadn't seen people. I was lucky to work for 2 years under the guidance of American managers. What happy years these are, such a human attitude, no boss or subordinate, I felt equal, could easily say about the shortcomings in the project, the feeling that friends are trying to launch the project. It was with the Americans that everything was right on time and with feathers, as soon as the Americans left (ours believed that they did not do anything, but received 2 thousand dollars a day), then everything fell apart, the deadlines began to fail, the bosses began to shout at the slaves, slaves scattered.
      1. Lionnvrsk
        Lionnvrsk 15 December 2020 16: 43
        +1
        Quote: Imobile
        I was lucky to work for 2 years under the guidance of American managers. What happy years these are

        lol Until he finished writing? repeat
  15. bober1982
    bober1982 14 December 2020 12: 26
    +5
    09.12.2020 another F-16 collapsed, the Americans sparingly reported that the fate of the pilot was unknown.
    Here, on the site, they didn't even say half a word about it.
    What does it mean?
  16. xomaNN
    xomaNN 14 December 2020 12: 29
    +1
    A very well-reasoned article. Thanks for the knowledge
  17. akarfoxhound
    akarfoxhound 14 December 2020 13: 16
    +13
    Interestingly, of course, the brake cables say ...
    July 16, 1996, MiG-31 (46750 kg max takeoff weight of materiel) our regimental crew of the deputy regiment commander p / p-k Ananko and pilot-navigator k-n Levchenko during the flight "home" airfield Khotilovo - after the ascent of the NK, the failure of the SU, pulled to the left , turned off the afterburners, rolled off the runway at V = 250 km / h, broke the ATU brake mesh (cut off the head of a local special officer who had entered there with his video camera with a mesh cable), demolished concrete slabs with a cursik standing on them (KRM PRMG), the upper slab "passed "just by the cockpit lights, cutting it off nafur outright, the plane turned over, burned with the crew, in the summer of 6-7 years ago (I don't remember exactly, you won't find this incident among journalists) in Engels, the refusal of the SU (afterburner) on the Tu-160 with a full refueling (275 tons maximum take-off weight), the plane, of course, rolls out of the runway and safely stops on the ground, the crew de-energizes the board, normally crawls out through the hatch in the nose landing gear, walked away, lit a cigarette, shares their impressions, while "the whole royal cavalry and the whole king Evskaya army "scratches with sirens to help them.
    How long does it take to smoke a cigarette? So, they didn’t have time to finish smoking - there was a “crackle” behind them, they turned around - the step-ladder under the plane curls up ... In general, “not much time has passed” and the board was on its belly, the stands of the standing plane entered the ground like a swamp. The fuel was pumped out, the materiel was "dug up", pulled out, but that's not the point. 160, if with a full refueling according to the task, in the parking lot every 20-30 minutes they roll back and forth several meters with tractors so that the pneumatics do not become "square", the take-off speed is about the same as on the 31 MiGars in the region of 350-370.
    And now let's return to your topic - do you talk to carry portable brake cables with you on airfields? wink
    1. Pete mitchell
      Pete mitchell 14 December 2020 15: 02
      +10
      Quote: akarfoxhound
      pilot-navigator Mr. Levchenko

      Released together, eternal memory
    2. yehat2
      yehat2 15 December 2020 15: 46
      0
      Quote: akarfoxhound
      brake cable talk

      we are talking about the operation of relatively light machines.
      in addition, if the brake system was put on just for show, without taking into account the real efficiency, it is pointless to say that it does not work or there is no sense. This is the same as writing "there is gas" on an empty tank
  18. Desperado
    Desperado 14 December 2020 13: 45
    +1
    Quote: akarfoxhound
    Interestingly, of course, the brake cables say ...
    July 16, 1996, MiG-31 (46750 kg max takeoff weight of materiel) our regimental crew of the deputy regiment commander p / p-k Ananko and pilot-navigator k-n Levchenko during the flight "home" airfield Khotilovo - after the ascent of the NK, the failure of the SU, pulled to the left , turned off the afterburners, rolled off the runway at V = 250 km / h, broke the ATU brake mesh (cut off the head of a local special officer who had entered there with his video camera with a mesh cable), demolished concrete slabs with a cursik standing on them (KRM PRMG), the upper slab "passed "just by the cockpit lights, cutting it off nafur outright, the plane turned over, burned with the crew, in the summer of 6-7 years ago (I don't remember exactly, you won't find this incident among journalists) in Engels, the refusal of the SU (afterburner) on the Tu-160 with a full refueling (275 tons maximum take-off weight), the plane, of course, rolls out of the runway and safely stops on the ground, the crew de-energizes the board, normally crawls out through the hatch in the nose landing gear, walked away, lit a cigarette, shares their impressions, while "the whole royal cavalry and the whole king Evskaya army "scratches with sirens to help them.
    How long does it take to smoke a cigarette? So, they didn’t have time to finish smoking - there was a “crackle” behind them, they turned around - the step-ladder under the plane curls up ... In general, “not much time has passed” and the board was on its belly, the stands of the standing plane entered the ground like a swamp. The fuel was pumped out, the materiel was "dug up", pulled out, but that's not the point. 160, if with a full refueling according to the task, in the parking lot every 20-30 minutes they roll back and forth several meters with tractors so that the pneumatics do not become "square", the take-off speed is about the same as on the 31 MiGars in the region of 350-370.
    And now let's return to your topic - do you talk to carry portable brake cables with you on airfields? wink


    In my opinion, the answer to your question is in the article, this is the safety lane at the end of the runway.
    1. akarfoxhound
      akarfoxhound 14 December 2020 14: 30
      +10
      You have no idea how carefully I read this. In the comments above, they wrote "for the safety lane" for all aerodromes, including dispersal and AUDs, and separately for the aerofinishers. Not only is it questionable in terms of cost / efficiency at our volumes. You graciously read my comment without delving into why I cited these cases as an example. In my 2 variants of a crash and an accident of a heavy fighter and a strategist - what safety lanes with finishers will help ??? What are you talking about? Do all lanes 4,5 km ??? Or, as the author wrote, 70 m at the end of the runway is enough for 250 km / h at a 40 ton hole, which is carried away with side drift? in case of failure of the SU with a deviation from the course - to the left / to the right, set half a kilometer of pillows ??? The MiG brake cable broke - I did not notice. And what are you planning to stop the incomplete 300 tons at 300 km / h?
      In July 2006, a Tu-134 BUSovskaya from the Gvardeyskoye airfield caught a Black Sea cormorant on takeoff when it was taken off from the runway. Safely flew over the transverse road to the village of Shafrannaya (1-1,5 m above the "horizon"), before it blew away the PRMG antennas in the air with the right wing, slammed 300 m from the butt, tearing off the left wing, the belly was rye - it slipped, it would have been something viscous - twisted) and stopped 100 m from the BPRM (1000m from the end), the car took off with 47 tons (overload). A kilometer from the runway to cover the safety strip, so for sure ???

      None of the flight crew will say that everything described above by the author is bad, but huge amounts thrown into these structures will still be ineffective as a result in the statistics of accidents for this factor of reasons.
      1. Desperado
        Desperado 14 December 2020 14: 54
        +1
        It is clear from open sources that our strategists are based in Engels. The runway was modernized in 12-13, but they did not lengthen it, the same 3,5 km. Why really? The logic is as simple as a tree stump. How much is the 160th there? RUB 16 billion? Penny ...
        On the occasion of the MiG-31, there was only a bailout option, since there were buildings behind the runway. There are dozens of cases of roll-out beyond the runway, the author of the article gave an excellent example with 34m. So security systems are needed like air. How much does it cost to properly prepare a crew for the Su-34? Obviously more expensive than building another side. The question is in relation to their people, for a long time it is necessary to move away from the concepts of "women still give birth."
        1. akarfoxhound
          akarfoxhound 14 December 2020 16: 36
          +6
          In the example of the 31st-RP, he gave the command to leave twice, Ananko (Afghan passed, there was his last flight, the order was already in the unit on demobilization) made the decision that he would calmly "arrive", but the board was carried sharply to the side, ATU broke, the clearing was cleared before the BPRM was present, the terrain is swampy, viscous), what kind of safety zone should there still be in those conditions? The "buildings" mentioned by you and given by me in the example are on every runway, except for the landing sites in the "wilderness" under the An-2 among reindeer moss. These "buildings" are course and glide path radio beacons (KRM, timing of the PRMG system), course students on the landing course, glide paths on the side, as well as lights of the light horizon, approach, etc. crap of light-signal equipment, BPRM, DPRM with both starts Around the strip - a radio direction finder, a control locator Now there is a correction station (removes the errors of satellite signals at a given location), according to the requirements of FAP-262 (federal aviation rules) at new airfields under construction, and then on "little things".

          An old bearded aviation joke (for the mood) on competent decision-making: "Drill, I'm 506th, AChS-1 refusal!" "506th, catapult!"
          (AChS-1 onboard clock)

          Now, according to the requirements of paragraph 5 of FAP-262 (but this is not military, but civil aviation) there is a concept of a "safety strip" - this is 150 m to the left / right of the runway, there should be nothing (buildings, structures, work carried out (bulk and depth, including) during flights.According to the landing course, the support systems are standing, they can not go anywhere.They ensure flight safety (meteorological minimum landing) in terms of efficiency many times greater than the "distant emergency site", this is not even discussed. now on the army engineering FAPs with side "bzp stripes" - no longer in the know, 2 years on demobilization.
          1. Pete mitchell
            Pete mitchell 14 December 2020 18: 45
            +3
            Quote: akarfoxhound
            Drill, I'm 506th, refusal ...

            Drill ... dear, today you are driving me into nostalgia ...
      2. Boris Chernikov
        Boris Chernikov 14 December 2020 19: 58
        -1
        here is a key point in another ... yes, in a number of accidents, the described measures will be ineffective from the word in general, but it's like wearing helmets at a construction site and helmets for motorcyclists - even if it comes in handy once in a lifetime, it's better to have a helmet on your head, and not somewhere in the closet ... yes, at a construction site hectares a stove may fall off the head, and a motorcycle ride at a speed of 1 km / h ... but cases can be different. The same roll-out for the lane - how much will it cost to fix the same conditional su-150 / 34? in hundreds of millions of rubles, and how much will the purchase of a new one cost if it rolls out of the strip and falls apart?
        1. akarfoxhound
          akarfoxhound 15 December 2020 02: 05
          +2
          Have you noticed that all commentators related to aviation agree that security measures are needed, but only those who have nothing to do with it consider this issue in the above volumes - "payback"? Nothing strange?
          1. Boris Chernikov
            Boris Chernikov 15 December 2020 08: 53
            -1
            it depends on what measures - for example, the alteration of all aircraft - no, but the safety zones at the end of the lanes are more than yes, because digging a pit, filling it with sand and covering it with a thin protective coating, I don't think it will be very expensive, even if you get impudent, then we will talk about a hundred million rubles for 1 lane .. 2 accidents prevented will quietly recoup the investment.
            1. akarfoxhound
              akarfoxhound 16 December 2020 11: 13
              +1
              Those. According to you, the safety lane looks like this - a "pit with sand" for a long jumper, and all the things? And no one saw such simplicity, and the engineering aerodrome operators were simply "lazy and unaware"?
              1. Boris Chernikov
                Boris Chernikov 16 December 2020 11: 26
                -2
                if it's very rude, then yes, but about "engineering airfields" and so on .. we still do not have hangars for aircraft at many airfields .. only last year after Syria decided to start actively building them .. the problem of the army is that everything is being done according to the charter, and no one wants to change the charter, which leads to its obsolescence
  19. Dmitry V.
    Dmitry V. 14 December 2020 14: 08
    +1
    Alexander - why this educational program?

    Is your article as a voice crying in the wilderness an attempt to attract public opinion?
    Nobody will hear.
    Why do we in GA give permission to operate aircraft of the ATR-72 type when their operation is prohibited in the northern regions of the United States and Canada (due to insufficient measures to protect against icing)? Which leads to disaster in Tyumen. Who was removed as a result of the investigation - who gave the certificate of airworthiness in the Russian Federation? No - the commander's boy was made the scapegoat.

    The question is rhetorical.
    The chiefs of the aircraft and aircraft are not appointed for professional aptitude - their personal tasks are not at all related to flight safety, where can they think about the infrastructure of airports.
  20. The comment was deleted.
    1. Imobile
      Imobile 14 December 2020 14: 23
      -1
      The old ones cannot be remade, but the new ones are very even
      1. bar
        bar 14 December 2020 14: 32
        +2
        And what to do with the old ones? And in how many decades will the park be completely renewed? And what to do all these decades?
        But this is so, in general. And specifically to me, as a simple mechanic, it seems that it is simply impossible to create the necessary power frame for an aircraft such as the Tu-160, so that 275 tons could be braked with 3G, applying force at one point. After all, this force should be 275 x 3 = 825 tons. Well, or you just get a hook with wings, everything else will have space and carrying capacity. No.
    2. The comment was deleted.
      1. bar
        bar 14 December 2020 19: 12
        +2
        We already have adapted aircraft for the aircraft carrier.

        They are not adapted, they are different, initially. It is impossible to "adapt" a ready-made aircraft without making changes to its power structure. This time. And two - for heavy aircraft, this "adaptation" is in principle not applicable (see above about the Tu-160). With regard to "master the road", then in relation to the hooks and brake cables, this is just demagoguery. I fully support the equipment of normal safety lanes; such a measure will increase the safety of both light and heavy aircraft. And it costs orders of magnitude cheaper than the creation of new devices.
  21. Sirocco
    Sirocco 14 December 2020 14: 48
    +1
    A mess in the country, a mess in the minds of both cadets and instructors, as a result we get grief for pilots, and the sources of this problem in the education system, training, the Soviet system ditched a new one could not and will not be able, since the system was worked out and was considered the best, in general we are reaping the fruits of the capitalist system.
  22. iouris
    iouris 14 December 2020 15: 24
    +2
    Quote: "But maybe I'm wrong?" End of quote.
    "Are you my brother, or not my brother?
    Are you glad to me, or not? "
    Etc.
    "We must, must, must, must, pa-pa-think!"
  23. Boris Chernikov
    Boris Chernikov 14 December 2020 19: 52
    -1
    The author is bold lois, the article is good, in fact, I consider it unlikely that all aircraft will be altered for specific security measures, but the creation of "sand baths" for braking is a very real and most importantly necessary solution .. Although I understand that, given that we still do not build hangars for aviation everywhere, then it will be difficult to wait for such security measures ... BUT I hope that the author will be heard at the top
    1. iouris
      iouris 14 December 2020 22: 58
      +1
      Quote: Boris Chernikov
      good article

      ... but very, very long. Too much water. All this can be summarized without unnecessary pathos in a few paragraphs, since the article still does not contain statistics on losses, cost estimates and the expected effect.
      1. Boris Chernikov
        Boris Chernikov 14 December 2020 23: 26
        -2
        well it's a matter of taste
  24. Tests
    Tests 14 December 2020 21: 54
    0
    Dear akarfoxhound rights for 202%, lighting equipment and near drive "buildings" where to remove? In August 1985, the Tu-22U in Machulishchi plowed the soil for more than 600 m towards Minsk. Who cares to read: "The accident of the Tu-22U aircraft 30.08.85/22/XNUMX, Panin's crew", link: http://www.airforce.ru/aircraft/miscellaneous/ejectionseats/tu/tu-XNUMX_accidents.htm
    In the summer, during takeoff in Machulishchi, aircraft with a rocket were detached from the last runway plate many times. In the 50s, when the airfield was being built, they did not expect that Tu-3 and MiG-22 would take off over Minsk 23 times a week and almost every day ...
    Dear author, you have a Tu-22M3 in your photo. The Tu-22 is a completely different aircraft made in the 50s. In the mid-90s, Tu-22s either became monuments, or for American dollars, both in the Russian Federation and in Ukraine were destroyed.
    1. Alexander Vorontsov
      14 December 2020 22: 00
      0
      Quote: Tests
      Dear akarfoxhound rights to 202%, lighting equipment and near drive "buildings" where to remove?

      What is lighting equipment?
      Is this the one that should help in adverse weather conditions such as these?

      PS
      1) In order to put it somewhere you need to have it.
      2) At airports, this has already been implemented - the lights are right on top of the "airbag" on special structures. The task is elementary - how to fix the light bulbs.

      Like so
    2. Vladimir podryatov
      Vladimir podryatov 15 December 2020 15: 58
      +2
      We have a command regiment in Baranovichi in 1977 on the TU-22 sat down on a third of the lane, worked with the SP-unfastened, burned the brakes on the main ones (this is a hello to the author about the rear supports, he did not study in aviation educational institutions and with this technique never did not work, in aviation no one has thought of such a dump), as a result, slipped through the CPB and stuck into the railway embankment. Everyone, of course, amen. I came to TEC in 1978, we were immediately told and shown this to everyone. And this is not the first time when they sit down not according to the markings, but how to get it, at least half a strip. I was laden with such a landing on the IL, though a little (MI-8 alone) and watched with the remains of burning in the tanks. The pitch of the column into the throat, the ramp along the concrete, sparks fly, the rubber is already smoking in the parking lot (it was watered, as usual), but it was kept to the end. True, the weather was 80 by 800, there were no drives (the airfield was completely destroyed after the war) like landing on a field in a sunflower (this is Africa, Congo, Kisangani), he made 2 calls, goes overhead above us and is not visible. The fire ends, he has nowhere to go, the grandfather from VTA sat down. I was in command of the base, so I met them, I did not swear, I sympathized with the commander, offered help, they refused, they said there was spare rubber. My friend (GA) at TU-134 (UTair) in Samara (I still remembered the year in everyone's memory) or 2006-2007, in the worst weather in winter, did not begin to leave for the second. Bottom line: immediately after the BPRM he kissed the virgin soil, tumbled towards the runway, broke the fuselage, the 2-x-200 cockpit was not even scratched. According to the photographs, from the wreckage to the strip, another 6 meters, that is, lying on the PBC. The trial, of course, was a year for each.
  25. Rvlad
    Rvlad 14 December 2020 22: 04
    +3
    A very naive and one-sided article. In order to draw conclusions on the cause-and-effect relationships of events leading to aviation incidents, you must at least understand what you are discussing. A human being, as a key element of such a complex technical system, is not ideal and his weakness is that he needs to be taught to fly and to develop flight skills. Skills are lost very quickly, without continuous reinforcement. This leads to the so-called. errors in piloting technique, in this case at the landing stage. And this is a very difficult stage of the flight. It is enough to look at the statistics of accidents in military aviation and our "sworn" friends and you, dear author, will somewhat reduce your skepticism and will not write such ugly titles as the title of this article ... I do not know how about the "stupid loss" of aircraft, so be it You know that up to 1994 in the USSR Air Force (front-line aviation) annually in accidents and disasters up to a hundred aircraft were lost and up to 50 pilots were killed. At the same time, indiscipline (hooliganism) in the air accounted for no more than 10% and errors in piloting techniques up to 30-50% (this reason even included what happened in conditions under which the pilot simply could not help but die (reaching supercritical angles piloting at low altitudes.) As a rule, the line between possible and error was very illusory and very often there was a powerful subjective factor in determining the cause). At the same time, until 94, the average annual flight rate of 90-100 hours remained. Then there was a collapse. And as far as I know, the required plaque has not been fully recovered. Except for individual aviation units. So everything is not as simple as you imagine, judging by the article
    1. Alexander Vorontsov
      14 December 2020 22: 33
      -1
      Quote: RVlad
      your skepticism and will not write such ugly titles as the title of this article ...

      This is not my skepticism, but the real state of affairs.
      The same scenario is repeated.
      Every now and again. Year after year.
      And there are solutions.
      But they don't apply.
      This is stupidity.
      1. EvilLion
        EvilLion 15 December 2020 08: 39
        +3
        Are you a professional in this field to accuse those who really work in it for stupidity?
      2. Rvlad
        Rvlad 15 December 2020 10: 11
        +5
        You are simply not a professional, not in the subject and are trying to amuse your vanity. And you know nothing of the real state of affairs. And to draw attention to your opus (the level of the "Problem statement" section from the diploma project of a mediocre MAI student) use the definition of "stupidity". You are sure that you have understood the safety of flights, the rules and regulations for the design of aircraft, in the dynamics of flight, in aviation medicine, etc. to draw the conclusions that you brought in your article? I think that they did not understand at all and did not even come close to understanding the problem ... Obscene language in flight during radio exchange does not always reflect only the cultural level, most often it is evidence of the development of a catastrophic situation through the tension of the crew. It is very easy to criticize cadets, combat pilots in the way they fly, to count them "" (this is not for you), but at the same time without sitting at the controls of a real, not a computer game, aircraft for a minute. Hundreds of pilots, different in character, talent and position, have passed through my hands and soul, and I can say with confidence: the higher the training of a pilot, the more terrible the consequences of mistakes they make in flight, at different stages. The higher the pilot's qualification, the more complex flight tasks he performs, and accordingly, the appearance of an error is REGULAR. This is how a person is made. If you think that you are above all this and you have the moral and qualification right to assess, then why are you not in the design bureau, not in the flight safety service? Go ahead, hold the flag in your hands and show everyone that you are capable of doing something sensible. A MAN, in essence, a being is generally STUPID and learns only from his personal experience. And what do you want to do with it? Well, give a definition in your style to the Almighty, for the fact that he from time to time allows stupid creatures to life. Try it, and suddenly it works and we will all live well and happily))))) Do not be offended. Themselves asked for
        1. Alexander Vorontsov
          15 December 2020 10: 59
          +3
          I am not offended, mainly by the fact that I do not understand what all this has to do with me.

          I do not understand the patriotism expressed in upholding the right of our pilots to die in situations that can be excluded by appropriate technical solutions.

          Profanity in flight during radio traffic does not always reflect only the cultural level, most often it is evidence of the development of a catastrophic situation through the tension of the crew

          A catastrophic situation in relation to the roller - is this a regular approach?
          Is this a reason to scream and swear because the student is making an obvious, typical mistake and this puts the instructor into a state of deep stress?
        2. Vladimir podryatov
          Vladimir podryatov 15 December 2020 16: 23
          +3
          The one who wrote the "rear pillars" could not study at the Moscow Aviation Institute or any educational aviation institution. This could blurt out an aviation specialist from behind a hillock who made a computer. translation into Russian or trying to be smart about a sofa guru with an accounting education. I was doing this from 1974 to 2015 and no one ever thought to blurt out this. And in the KIPLA course it is directly painted, the front landing gear, the main struts, there can be several of them and the tail, if necessary. With a bicycle layout, there will be several main struts and wing struts are added. This is M-4. So either an accountant or a US provocateur
        3. Victor jnnjdfy
          Victor jnnjdfy 15 December 2020 18: 31
          0
          Not so much a person is stupid, but his nature (psyche / nervous system) is arranged in different ways. Someone in a difficult emergency situation falls into a panic, someone into a stupor, someone into a stupor, and then into a panic ... someone in an emergency situation remains practically unperturbed (the jitters come later). And it depends little on experience or qualifications. And the accidents are all different. I have never been a pilot, but anything can happen in the energy sector.
      3. Rvlad
        Rvlad 15 December 2020 10: 55
        +2
        The structure of prerequisites for aviation incidents in% by flight stages and positions of front-line aircraft
        Flight phase / generation 2nd generation 3rd generation 4th generation
        Takeoff, circle, route 3,4 8,5 3,1
        Aerobatics in the zone 16,2 15,5 31,1
        Application 7,3 20,1 29,3
        Approach, landing 72,4 55,4 35,3

        This is for you for the education that is lacking
      4. Rvlad
        Rvlad 15 December 2020 10: 57
        +4
        Here are statistical data on the structure of prerequisites for aviation accidents by flight stages and generations of front-line aircraft:
        2-th generation:
        Takeoff, circle, route - 3,4%
        Aerobatics in the zone - 16,2%
        Application - 7,3%
        Approach, landing - 72,4%
        3 generation
        Takeoff, circle, route - 8,5%
        Aerobatics in the zone - 15,5%
        Application - 20,1%
        Approach, landing - 55,4%
        4 generation
        Takeoff, circle, route - 3,1%
        Aerobatics in the zone - 31,1%
        Application - 29,3%
        Approach, landing - 35,3%

        And it turns out that thousands of dead pilots are fools, and one writer is a godsend !!!
        1. Alexander Vorontsov
          15 December 2020 11: 14
          0
          Statistical data that speak about the leading position of "take-off and landing" in accidents?
          Well, thanks, yes, that's what the article is about.
          Or did you want to say something else with this data?
          1. Rvlad
            Rvlad 15 December 2020 12: 26
            +4
            Are you really not thinking or are you pretending? Statistical data show that thanks to the instrumental means of ensuring the landing and reducing the available landing speed on the later generations of aircraft, it was possible to reduce the accident rate at the MOST difficult stage of the flight. But the basis of the landing accident is laid in the construction of the landing calculation. Since the process proceeds in time, and the pilot is piloting at modes close to the limiting ones, any error in the calculation or disregard (accident) of external factors in conditions of limited possibilities for countering them by the pilot (the technique is not omnipotent) can lead to a spontaneous development of an emergency situation up to a catastrophic one. And here already how lucky. Brakes, brake parachutes, mechanization are necessary conditions, but not sufficient. And your article is about something else entirely. Since you cannot separate the essence from the background, then my advice is: NEVER WRITE ANY ARTICLE AGAIN. They do more harm than good. You lead the untrained reader away from the problem.
            1. Alexander Vorontsov
              15 December 2020 12: 31
              -2
              Quote: RVlad
              Statistics show that

              They show that most accidents still occur during takeoff and landing.

              Quote: RVlad
              And here already how lucky.

              Well, yes, if you do not take care of the braking issues in advance, for example, installing a "trap" at the end of the lane, then the share of luck really increases significantly.
              1. Rvlad
                Rvlad 15 December 2020 13: 04
                +4
                You definitely do not understand or understand what you are "carrying." Brakes, parachutes and mechanization are the pilot's last hope and their use is limited by conditions: speed of application and efficiency in terms of dynamics. If you squeeze out the brakes at high speed, then take off your clothes and burn the wheels (you had to extinguish) and do not stay on the lane, but on the contrary, you will rush like clockwork, if you release the parachute at high speed, you will tear it off. All these spare and additional soil lanes are for extreme situations such as landing with an unreleased landing gear or with a nose strut, when you can start a fire on concrete or fly off it (and this was in my practice). Aerofinishers have limited capabilities and do not always cope due to the physics of the process. It is not always possible to organize unpaved areas (for bridging a rolling out aircraft) (due to the peculiarities of the runway location), but usually there are. The landing speed of modern aircraft in the region of 220-260 km / h and a runway length of 2600 m (standard) is enough for the eyes. It was enough for the MiG-21, and now even more so. The energy intensity of the brake wheels cannot be raised much - the plane must "carry bombs", not the wheels. Well, the energy consumption was somewhat raised with materials, well, the weight of the wheels was increased, well, they began to water the SHS and insert fans into the wheels. And the pilots were as wrong as they are wrong, as they sat down with a short flight, and they sit down. It is impossible to fully automate the landing - they will completely forget how to land: if they fail, they will just jump, at least they themselves will be saved. And so on ... Our technique is no worse than Western technology (I know both well enough). In the 90s, they had 100-120 hours of live flight per pilot and up to 200 hours on simulators per year. Ours is worse. But we mainly have a raid in SMU and at a weather minimum, and they mainly have PMU. The climate is different. In Germany, conditions are close to ours, and there the raid is the same as ours. And on landing, they all tumble the same
  26. Al Asad
    Al Asad 15 December 2020 00: 30
    0
    Leaving for the second circle is something with something for pilots, both military and civilians. As I understand it, for retirement, all relatives and friends of the pilot are immediately put up against the wall, and he himself is sentenced to life without trial or investigation
    Can anyone tell?
    1. Rvlad
      Rvlad 15 December 2020 10: 19
      +4
      This is the usual way of avoiding a possible emergency situation: a problem on the ground, the crew's unpreparedness for landing, errors in the construction of the landing trajectory, weather conditions, etc. The fact is that a forced go-around can lead to the development of an emergency situation in the control system air traffic in the airport area, especially during heavy traffic. The flight crew is required to work out a maneuver - go-around during flight training. There is nothing like that. But if the go-around is the result of a crew error, then this is a "bell" ...
  27. Evgenii Xolod
    Evgenii Xolod 15 December 2020 01: 31
    0
    And on how many thousands of flights does an accident happen and what is the indicator relative to other countries? I am for the fact that falcons are constantly hanging over the dacha in a couple of 4))))) the barrel faces are twisting. Actually, during intensive operation, equipment failures are not something completely unusual, the main thing is that the flyers remain alive.
    In my opinion. Although it was interesting about measures to reduce accidents.
  28. lexseyOGK
    lexseyOGK 15 December 2020 05: 31
    0
    Author!!!. In which su-type aircraft did you find the braking system on the front support !!!! ???
    1. Rvlad
      Rvlad 15 December 2020 10: 14
      +1
      on a MiG-21 plane
    2. Alexander Vorontsov
      15 December 2020 12: 33
      -1
      Quote: lexseyOGK
      Author!!!. In which su-type aircraft did you find the braking system on the front support !!!! ???

      suuuu ... perjet 100 laughing
  29. EvilLion
    EvilLion 15 December 2020 08: 31
    +3
    And here the evil people recently filmed a video about the non-combat losses of American aircraft in recent years, even adjusted for numbers, they only hit cars in this way. I’m wondering if something’s wrong, and who should we be guided by in this matter, even if they have dozens of planes with their military budget.
    1. Alexander Vorontsov
      15 December 2020 11: 08
      +1
      Planes crash for many reasons.
      I have described the scenarios for which there are solutions to reduce accidents in these scenarios.
      What is your logic? If you can't save everyone, then you don't need to do anything at all, right?
      1. EvilLion
        EvilLion 15 December 2020 11: 25
        -1
        Let's order.
        1) You claim that the measures are very simple and effective.
        2) The Air Force does not apply these measures.
        3) If the measures are simple and effective, but the Air Force does not apply them, then it turns out that the Air Force is simply stupid?
        1. Alexander Vorontsov
          15 December 2020 11: 39
          0
          Quote: EvilLion
          2) The Air Force does not apply these measures.

          Ours do not apply.
          In the west, they are excellently used.


          There is such an American politician - Mike Pence, who was personally in the crashed plane with his family.




          Quote: EvilLion
          3) If the measures are simple and effective, but the Air Force does not apply them, then it turns out that the Air Force is simply stupid?

          Conceptually lagging behind modern solutions, this is probably more correct.
          1. Rvlad
            Rvlad 15 December 2020 12: 32
            +3
            You, that on the forehead, that on the forehead: contradict yourself through the phrase. What are the concepts, where did you find them?
          2. Rvlad
            Rvlad 15 December 2020 12: 33
            +3
            In the West, exactly the same problems, everything is the same ...
  30. PilotS37
    PilotS37 15 December 2020 12: 19
    0
    In the case of combat aircraft, thrust reverse is not applied.

    If the author added "domestic", he would be absolutely right.
    And so it turns out that never at all. But what about Viggen ?!
  31. Alexander Vorontsov
    15 December 2020 13: 07
    0
    Quote: RVlad
    You definitely do not understand or understand what you are "carrying."

    Very clearly - the data that you have provided only confirms the correctness of everything that is written in the article. Thanks for the statistics.
    1. Rvlad
      Rvlad 15 December 2020 22: 00
      0
      Are you, sorry, complete? Can you distinguish the premise of the incident from the incident (accidents and disasters)? I have given you data that speaks about the frequency of erroneous actions by the pilot in flight for different stages of the flight. Not every mistake turns into an accident or disaster. A pilot can make erroneous actions in a clear mind and full memory under the influence of a large number of external factors with a lack of time. For generations 2-3, at relatively high landing speeds (sometimes under 300 km / h), an error in the landing calculation could be expensive. At unfamiliar airfields, there were always difficulties during flights. Hence the higher error rate on landings ... You are just a stubborn amateur. That's it, we end the discussion
      1. Alexander Vorontsov
        15 December 2020 22: 20
        0
        Quote: RVlad
        I gave you the data,

        And I thanked you for the data that confirm the relevance of my topic)))
        Everything else you have is a stormy hysteria.

        That's it, we end the discussion

        All the best.
  32. yehat2
    yehat2 15 December 2020 15: 50
    +1
    Quote: akarfoxhound
    What is now on the army engineering FAPs

    and what are the standards for strip length?
    I have heard on the blog of a Ukrainian who serves helicopters in the US Army that they simply do not have a runway shorter than 1.8 miles.
  33. yehat2
    yehat2 15 December 2020 15: 53
    +1
    Quote: Al Asad
    Can anyone tell?

    each company has its own instructions. But we sometimes abuse fuel economy and time for rest and maintenance, so the pilots rush to land.
  34. yehat2
    yehat2 15 December 2020 16: 01
    +1
    Quote: akarfoxhound
    huge amounts of money thrown into these structures

    where did you find huge amounts?
    Is it very expensive to make a normal runway exit area?
    not even funny. Moreover, this is a passive zone that does not eat practically anything in operation.
    Another thing is that there are a lot of runways that cannot be lengthened at all, and no one is going to build new ones.
    I saw an airplane crash in Pulkovo in the summer - it burned down, but it didn't suffer much from rolling off the runway - it got stuck in the mud about 70-100 meters away.
    1. Alexander Vorontsov
      15 December 2020 18: 51
      +1
      Quote: yehat2
      where did you find huge amounts?
      Is it very expensive to make a normal runway exit area?

      I also find such arguments strange.

      When I was preparing the article, I read several sources about the economic feasibility of such decisions, but then I decided to remove this part from the final version, so as not to make the article too large, because it seemed to me obvious that "boxes of sand" cost a penny compared to airplanes.

      It turned out to be wrong.

      One source said that it cost $ 2 million to equip emergency end strips for large passenger planes.
      Which is 8 times cheaper than the option without them (by their standards, about 300 meters)
      Although, of course, "without everything" is even cheaper.


      In another, the problem is formulated as follows - the benefit is indisputable, but the catch is that the beneficiary is most often the owner of the aircraft, while the costs of the airfield infrastructure are borne by other legal entities. faces. Those. the problem is exclusively bureaucratic.
      1. yehat2
        yehat2 16 December 2020 02: 59
        0
        these costs, for example, at Pulkovo will pay off in a year, simply because the airport will become more comfortable and safe for business jets in bad weather or some flights with heavy liners.
        the problem is not even a bureaucratic one, but the fact that the top management is not able to competently evaluate promising projects and take the initiative and risks into their own hands.
  35. Old major
    Old major 15 December 2020 18: 01
    +2
    1. There are no brake wheels on the front struts. In any case, on the ten aircraft that I studied and once operated (Yak-18, MiG-21, MiG-23, MiG-29, Tu-16, Tu-134, Tu-154, Il-86, Yak -40, An-24, An-12, L-410) there were no brake wheels on the front rack. The author - well, at least a little bit you need to understand the issue!
    2. Putting braking cables (like on aircraft carriers) on ordinary airfields is stupid. At first. then the aircraft themselves will have to be overweight by strengthening the fuselage and landing gear. The fact is that you enter an aircraft carrier with a high glide path angle, with a larger Vvert. and you sit down with greater overload. Accordingly - more weight of the structure, less weight of the payload. That is, you stupidly carry heavy chassis, landing hook and heavier fuselage. That is why there are aircraft deck modifications and they ALWAYS have a lower combat load than the same but conventional modifications.
    And the Turks do not use hooks at all - they have no deck vehicles or deck pilots. At all. What the author wanted to show in the photo - I don't know, "Turkish Stars" fly very old F-5s, as far as I know the F-5 does not have a deck version with a hook at all.
    3. About "take-off analysis". The main parameter when making the decision "stop takeoff - continue takeoff" is speed. If the decision speed V1 is exceeded - take off. Except in the case of a complete failure of all engines, then the brakes are as it turns out. The pilot calculates this speed before entering the cockpit, in the pre-flight training class.
    4. Aerofinishers (so called such lifting nets for the runway). Yes - they slow down, but this is only relevant for fighters and attack aircraft (or IBA personnel). They won't hold a bomber, trans or passenger plane. In 1985, I saw the work of such grids, when on the MiG-23 the pilot (Major I class) did not release the wing during takeoff and took off at 72 degrees. In the process of takeoff, he realized (he took the handle, the nose lifted up, and the plane did not fly), he began to emergency brakes, rolled out and broke three nets out of four. This is a MiG-23, 14 tons, but if there was a Tu-16, put at least 10 nets there - everything would have broken.
    5. The given example with rolling out in Buturlinovka is a classic piloting error. I do not know the pilot's raid, nor how much he flew on the type, but the fact that he did not extinguish the speed speaks of poor preparation. And the brake has nothing to do with it. How many cases have occurred both on the MiG-21 and on the MiG-23, when the technician, when preparing for the flight, forgot to remove the check from the brake and, upon landing, he fell out with a bag and that's it - and nothing happened. Even the PAP was not issued, only the enema was prescribed from a bucket of Vaseline. Given the length of the strip and the correct approach of the wheel brakes, it is enough, well, yes - more wear. In Buturlinovka, as far as I remember, runway 2800, there on the Su-34 it is not that you can land without a brake, there you can carry out a conveyor belt, the length is enough.
    6. About the CPB. If 3500 m (THREE AND HALF KM !!!!!) is not enough for you to run, then at least 75 meters do the PBC, at least 300 - you will still fly away and break the wood. All this is nonsense - there is a standard, according to it.
    1. Alexander Vorontsov
      15 December 2020 18: 40
      0
      Quote: Old Major
      2. Putting braking cables (like on aircraft carriers) on ordinary airfields is stupid. At first. then the aircraft themselves will have to be overweight by strengthening the fuselage and landing gear. The fact is that you enter an aircraft carrier with a high glide path angle, with a larger Vvert. and you sit down with greater overload. Accordingly - more weight of the structure, less weight of the payload. That is, you stupidly carry heavy chassis, landing hook and heavier fuselage. That is why there are aircraft deck modifications and they ALWAYS have a lower combat load than the same but conventional modifications.
      And the Turks do not use hooks at all - they have no deck vehicles or deck pilots. At all. What the author wanted to show in the photo - I don't know, "Turkish Stars" fly very old F-5s, as far as I know the F-5 does not have a deck version with a hook at all.

      Feeling as if you haven't watched the video.
      And they didn't read it
      It turned out that the plane can grab the cable by driving over it with its wheels. This made the landing similar to the usual one with all the consequences - it made it possible to use it by ordinary pilots with a minimum extra. preparation.
      1. NN52
        NN52 15 December 2020 18: 57
        0
        Question? Where should the cable be on the runway?
        1. Alexander Vorontsov
          15 December 2020 19: 07
          0
          Quote: NN52
          Question? Where should the cable be on the runway?

          There are many solutions depending on the specific system and aerodrome.
          If the expeditionary mobile option, as originally conceived, is closer to the beginning.
          There are options where it is located farther from the end.
          I saw a variant of the scheme of a stationary installation with 1 cable in the center of the runway.
          1. NN52
            NN52 15 December 2020 19: 11
            +2
            Then the next question ... what is the overload at the moment the hook meets the cable?
            And what does the pilot feel in the cockpit at this moment?
            At least on the example of landing on an avik deck or on a THREAD>
            1. Alexander Vorontsov
              15 December 2020 19: 18
              0
              Quote: NN52
              Then the next question ... what is the overload at the moment the hook meets the cable?
              And what does the pilot feel in the cockpit at this moment?
              At least on the example of landing on an avik deck or on a THREAD>

              The very moment of capture is much softer, because the cable is pre-tensioned and the hook simply pulls it off, and acceleration during braking is optional, depending on the conditions, but for the order of numbers, in order to stop the plane from 250 km per hour at 500 meters (for example), you need about 1,5g.
              For an unprepared person, this is "unpleasant".
              But the pilots on the deck sit down with 3-4g.
              1. NN52
                NN52 15 December 2020 19: 24
                +2
                3-4 landings on deck, and blood in the urine and red eyes ..
                And so, in principle, nothing serious)
                and a little bonus afterwards (retinal detachment).
                I didn't put the unit on the deck, but I heard ...
      2. Old major
        Old major 15 December 2020 20: 53
        +1
        what's the difference what level the pilot has? In terms of strength, you still need to reinforce the landing gear and fuselage, install a hook with a retraction system, etc. - an extra ton, that's at least. Again, different types can be used on the same lane - which cables should be installed? No - you just need to properly prepare the pilots.
    2. NN52
      NN52 15 December 2020 18: 48
      +3
      And also this "author" in pursuit, about the Su 24 on Khmeimim about 2017 ... they started the run not with "that wing" .. when they understood, they began to "shift" ... but they were not lucky .. (this is about the human factor ).
      1. Alexander Vorontsov
        15 December 2020 19: 04
        -1
        Quote: NN52
        And also this "author" in pursuit, about the Su 24 on Khmeimim about 2017 ... they started the run not with "that wing" .. when they understood, they began to "shift" ... but they were not lucky .. (this is about the human factor ).

        Automation allows you to enter takeoff mode with the wrong wing?
        1. NN52
          NN52 15 December 2020 19: 08
          0
          Everyone "clicked" ... the human factor .. and so took off. not enough, but it was hot and the load was to the eyeballs ..
          1. Alexander Vorontsov
            15 December 2020 19: 12
            0
            Quote: NN52
            Everyone "clicked" ... the human factor .. and so took off. not enough, but it was hot and the load was to the eyeballs ..

            Can you tell us in more detail what exactly was wrong?
            1. NN52
              NN52 15 December 2020 19: 16
              +1
              I've already written everything.
      2. Victor jnnjdfy
        Victor jnnjdfy 15 December 2020 20: 21
        +1
        The impression that students who have not completed their studies are writing articles. They also comment on them. God forbid, if among the commentators there are heels of professional flyers.
    3. Rvlad
      Rvlad 15 December 2020 22: 06
      +1
      "There are no brake wheels on the front struts. In any case, on the ten aircraft that I studied and once operated (Yak-18, MiG-21, MiG-23, MiG-29, Tu-16, Tu-134, Tu-154, Il-86, Yak-40, An-24, An-12, L-410) there were no brake wheels on the front pillar. The author - well, at least a little bit it is necessary to understand the issue! " - on the MiG-21, on all modifications, there was a KT-102 brake wheel on the nose rack))))) And I agree with the rest)))
    4. kova1967
      kova1967 19 December 2020 17: 04
      +1
      MIG-23 is definitely there! I am a TECH mechanic and I changed them!
  36. Old major
    Old major 15 December 2020 18: 08
    +1
    Yes, special thanks to the "suicide pigeon" for the downed B-52. We need to start collecting signatures on the Internet for posthumous awarding of this desperate little hero of Russia. Bliiiin, one pigeon - and a whole B-52. This is who it is necessary to breed, otherwise "air defense systems, high-altitude interception ...".
  37. Sergey Pedenko
    Sergey Pedenko 15 December 2020 19: 29
    0
    thanks to the author! very interesting, the cadet will probably be written off, but the fault is entirely on the instructor, complete incompetence /// the plaque is not big, but L-29, SU-7, SU-17 have been mastered, and this is forever!
    1. Alexander Vorontsov
      15 December 2020 19: 37
      0
      Quote: Sergey Pedenko
      the cadet will probably be written off, but the fault is entirely on the instructor

      It's a pity if so.
      In fact, he did nothing wrong. After the instructor commanded low throttle - as in that video, "that our powers are all."
  38. has born
    has born 15 December 2020 22: 20
    0
    The author's groans are pinned up: “How long!” Why are you surprised? I don’t understand ...
  39. constal
    constal 15 December 2020 23: 34
    +1
    He worked as an instructor pilot for 14 years, until Yeltsin reduced the army for 120000 people. In my opinion, the instructor pilot is not ready to take out the cadets, does not have a complete understanding of the training of cadets, and this is the result of the reduction policy. In this situation, the instructor is already at leveling (and this is already a flight
    floor of the strip) should give speed to the "Maximal" and report on the go-around. The command from the instructor was the opposite. For his practice, for going around, no one was fired and no one was shot. The result, you see, is good that they are alive. And yet, when the plane rolls out of the runway, you need to direct it only straight, in the video it wanted to turn off. In ours there were ATU nets for catching planes, I don’t know. Respect to the author of the column for professional coverage of the topic.
    1. NN52
      NN52 16 December 2020 19: 20
      +1
      To be honest, the comments here got ... well, what "cadet" ????? This is a young fighter pilot-officer, after school ... retraining for a new materiel.
  40. wow
    wow 16 December 2020 00: 21
    +1
    "... touching with the BACK (!) racks ...". You don't have to read further.
  41. alekszeit
    alekszeit 16 December 2020 14: 09
    0
    did not understand anything (What are the strategists, which BTAs with their weights, which safety lanes, if there is no money for many years, just increase the lane by 200-300 meters? is it only about new machines? Of course, new airfields can be built according to Feng Shui, but how many are planned to be built and when?
  42. Lew
    Lew 16 December 2020 17: 23
    0
    One I know that even before I came to aviation, i.e. until 1980, the stripes were completed with a "network", which the author calls conceptual?
  43. zenion
    zenion 16 December 2020 19: 12
    0
    Amazing incidents. He began serving at the airport from 1964 to 1967. There were no incidents. At the end of the runway there were nets for catching the plane, but they did not have to be used during the entire service period. There were long-range drives, short-range drives of various types of locators. The flight director was a very good specialist and smart.
    1. ccsr
      ccsr 16 December 2020 19: 50
      +1
      Quote: zenion
      Amazing incidents. He began serving at the airport from 1964 to 1967. There were no incidents. At the end of the runway there were nets for catching the plane, but they did not have to be used during the entire service period.

      The problem is that at that time airfields were being built for aircraft of that level of aviation development without much reserve for the future, and this was reasonable, since there were just barely enough funds in the country and no one would have allowed to lengthen the runway by an extra hundred meters. Now the planes are different, their mass is much greater, and the landing speeds have changed, and the size of most of the runways, if changed, is not enough to ensure that they avoid leaving the runways. After the collapse of the USSR, this was not seriously dealt with, but now the time has come to fundamentally reconsider the situation regarding runway lengthening - this is how I see this problem.
  44. kova1967
    kova1967 19 December 2020 17: 01
    0
    Thanks aftor! I found out that the rear discs are much smaller than the front ones! He served in the TEC of the aviation unit, was a first class aircraft mechanic by profession. Group-Plane, Route-Chassis! If this says something to you, I worked only on the chassis of the MiG-1, MiG-27. And the diameter and number of rear and front discs are different in favor of the rear ones! Even in the photo, the rear wheels are larger. And we had cliffs and no release of brake parachutes, but the pilots normally braked and brakes. Replacing disks did not take much time! This is a normal situation and you don't need to make a name on it !!!
  45. 3danimal
    3danimal 18 January 2021 00: 37
    -1
    Very interesting and useful article. good
    About the video of the Su-34 crash: it is striking that the pilot entered the glide path incorrectly, the speed and altitude are too high with such a short distance to the runway.
    The instructor should have seen this and immediately gave the order to go for the second run.
    (My "experience" is limited to DCS, but still smile )