Talk:Red Wings Airlines

Runway Over Run (20/12/2012)
Please do not add this incident again as it does not meet the criteria of WP:Aircrash Thanks --JetBlast (talk) 03:04, 30 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The December 20th incident actually does meet the requirements of WP: AIRCRASH as it resulted in a mandatory AD issued on December 24 by Rosaviatsia (Russia's Federal Air Transport Agency) which directed Red Wings and all other operators of the Ty-204 to inspect and perform extra lubrication to the drive mechanism limit switches on the main landing shock absorber before next departure. The day before the fatal Vnukovo accident, Rosaviatsia also formally notified the aircraft manufacturer, Tupolev, on December 28th that malfunctioning brakes had caused of the Red Wings Ty-204 overrun accident at Novosibirsk. This relates to the December 29 incident as Rosaviatsia must now determine both if a similar failure contributed to the accident at Vnukovo the day following the notification about the brake failure issue and if service personnel had yet performed the mandatory maintenance to the accident aircraft's brakes and undercarriage ordered by the Agency in its mandatory December 24 Airworthiness Directive. This also meets WP: AIRCRASH as the December 20th incident "resulted in changes to procedures, regulations or processes affecting airports, airlines or the aircraft industry" that directly related to Red Wings Airlines, the Ty-204-100B aircraft it operates, and the fatal overrun accident on December 29 which may well have resulted from the same brake failure that was responsible for the overrun at Novosibirsk involving the same airline and aircraft type & model. This will clearly be a central issue in the accident investigations of both the December 20th and 29th incidents. Centpacrr (talk) 04:24, 30 December 2012 (UTC)


 * It isn't a significant change so no it doesn't --JetBlast (talk) 11:27, 30 December 2012 (UTC)


 * No I'm afraid I must VERY much disagree. Two similar accidents/incidents on the same airline and the same type aircraft within NINE DAYS are indeed significant. The only reason that the December 20th overrun did not end as a write off of the airframe with many likely fatalities and injuries (there were 68 souls on board the flight) is that the 1,150 feet of terrain it traversed beyond the end of runway 25 in Novosibirsk was a flat, unobstructed surface instead of a fence, gully, and a highway embankment that the December 29 overrun aircraft encountered at the end of runway 19 in Moscow. The December 20 overrun event was followed by both a mandatory AD being issued just four days later that required action before the next departure, and the issuance of a formal advisory to the aircraft manufacturer made just the day before the fatal hull loss accident that the first overrun was the result of a mechanical brake failure that needed to be addressed as a major safety issue with the Ty-204-100B type. These facts are well sourced here and here and will doubtless be major issues in the investigations of both of these overruns thus ignoring the first overrun incident in the light of and relation to the second is encyclopedically irresponsible. The December 20 overrun incident also meets the WP: AIRCRASH guideline as it clearly "resulted in changes to procedures, regulations or processes affecting airports, airlines or the aircraft industry" that directly affected both Red Wings Airlines and every Ty-204-100B model aircraft in service with Red Wings and all the other commercial air carriers that operate them. Centpacrr (talk) 12:18, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

What was the actual change to the industry? --JetBlast (talk) 17:00, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It was announced today by the accident investigators that the two events (the December 20 and 29 runway overruns) very much appear to be directly related as examination of the the flight data recorder shows that as with the December 20 flight, RA-64047 touched down at the proper place for a normal landing but, as in the Novosibisk accident, the brakes on the RWA Ty-204-100B again failed. (See ) This is sure to result in very major changes in maintenance procedures for this aircraft, Red Wings Airlines, and in industry safety procedures as well. This is, in fact, exactly the kind of safety issue that could potentially lead to the grounding of the entire Ty-204 fleet until resolved. (I for one would certainly not feel comfortable to fly on one of these aircraft right now with two such brake failure overrun events happening nine days apart.) It should also be pointed out the Russian civil aviation has an absolutely dismal safety record, it took six years for the Ty-204 to be certificated for commercial passenger operations after its first flight in 1989 (certficated in 1995), and that only 57 Ty-204 airframes have ever been built in the 23 years since its debut in 1989.  Centpacrr (talk) 17:20, 30 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Still doesn't meet it. --JetBlast (talk) 00:35, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * JetBlast: Editors must make an affirmative case (as I have above in detail) and achieve CONSENSUS in order to revert material which is supported by verifiable and reliable references, the standard that the two sentences you removed meets. (See Hradecky, Simon "Incident: Red Wings T204 at Novosibirsk on Dec 20th 2012, runway excursion on landing" The Aviation Herald December 20, 2012 (updated December 30, 2012) and "Bad brakes cited in Moscow crash landing" Agence France-Presse (via NDTV.com) December 30, 2012) Simply repeatedly claiming a personal interpretation of a guideline (which is NOT a policy) is not sufficient. WP policy requires editors at a minimum to justify reverting and/or removing other editors' verified good faith material and then leaving it up to the community to arrive at consensus. Simply saying "Still doesn't meet it." does NOT constitute making a case, it's only a personal opinion. Editors must state why. Centpacrr (talk) 00:52, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * It shouldn't be listed until we have reached a consensus. Just because its in the news doesn't mean it should be listed. The incident on the 20th isn't notable. Its happened before and those incidents are not listed. Because its in the press doesn't create notability. Its not a major incident so shouldn't be listed --JetBlast (talk) 17:03, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Again you have just restated your personal view that the December 20th overrun "isn't notable" without providing anything whatsoever in support of your view. Again please just read the six cited references. They show that the December 20 overrun was far more than an incident as the aircraft overran the runway by 1,150 feet -- a VERY significant distance -- and did so with 68 souls on board. There was significant damage to the undercarriage (which kept the aircraft, RA-64049, out of service for seven days for repairs) and the passengers and crew had to be evacuated from the plane in situ. The only reason that this was not a fatal accident and/or W/O hull loss (as it would have been at most airports) was that there is more than 2,000 feet of open field at the end of Runway 25 at Novosibirsk as opposed to fencing, a deep gully, and an elevated highway embankment at the end of Runway 19 at Vnukovo Moscow that instead resulted in five fatalities, three critical injuries, fire, and hull loss.


 * As stated in the cited references, the December 20 overrun resulted in the issuance of an emergency mandatory airworthiness directive on December 24 relating to inspection and servicing of the brake system activation pressure switches on Ty-204-100B aircraft that had to be accomplished "before the next departure" followed by a another mandatory safety notice issued to Tupolev on December 28 -- the day before the Moscow accident -- relating both to the brakes issue and a change in how to correctly operate the engine thrust reversers on landing. Both of these system faults were found to be contributing causes of the December 20 overrun accident. Statements issued by the head of the Russian Federal Air Transport Agency (Rosaviatsia) on December 30 and 31 about the December 29 fatal Moscow accident cited in the references revealed that evidence derived from the FDR and CVR indicate failures of the brake system and thrust reversers appear to have been major causes of the Moscow overrun accident as well which has already led to the issuance of additional AD's citing both accidents as the reason. (See "Bad brakes cited in Moscow crash landing" Agence France-Presse (via NDTV.com) December 30, 2012 and Kaminski-Morrow, David "Tu-204 directive warns pilots to check thrust-reverse status" Flightglobal.com, January 2, 2013.)


 * The statements of Rosaviatsia that the same make and model aircraft operated by the same carrier experienced what appear to be virtually identical mechanical failures nine days apart that resulted in over 1,000 foot runway overruns and a hull loss with multiple fatalities makes them both accidents and not just "incidents". Both have critical operational safety implications and the similarity and coincidence of the two accidents could even lead to the potential grounding of the Ty-204-100B types until the exact causes of these mechanical failures is identified and corrected. In the light of the current facts as contained and cited in the references, any contention that the December 20 accident was "not notable" is simply not supported by the evidence of how Rosaviatsia responded to it both before and after the December 29 accident and therefore to ignore it in connection to the account of the Moscow accident is encyclopedicly irresponsible.


 * As for the claim "It shouldn't be listed until we have reached a consensus", that is simply backward as to how editing WP works. Material added in good faith to an article that is relevant to the topic and is supported by reliable and verifiable references does not require consensus in advance to be added. If that were the WP policy, virtually nothing would ever be added to any article at all. If after posted another editor believes that there is some reason that such material should be removed, then it is the obligation of the editor who proposes its removal to first make an affirmative case why and then to seek and achieve the consensus of the community supporting removal before doing so. Centpacrr (talk) 20:15, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Not bothered to read the above as i have nothing more to add. --JetBlast (talk) 22:26, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Res ipsa loquitur. Centpacrr (talk) 22:38, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Superjet gone?
Superjet gone?--Anidaat (talk) 13:15, 7 September 2016 (UTC)