34 The Lucky Tu-154

The Lucky Tu-154

Posted on November 4, 2011 by


It was an unbelievable luck that on Septermber 7th, 2010, the crew of the plane carrying 72 passengers on board, managed to make an emergency landing on an abandoned runway near Izhma Village. Since then, the lucky Tu-154 has been called 'a miracle of Izhma'.

The company 'ALROSA', the second largest dimond-mining company in the world, which owns the plane, did not leave it in taiga but spent over 20 million rubles (65o thousand dollars) to restore it and make 'the lucky aircraft' fly again.


Across the network:

loading...

The next day after the landing, they cut the surrounding trees down and built a small house.

Advertisement


Across the network:

34 Responses to “The Lucky Tu-154”

  1. Mr. Fox says:

    It’s story like tale.

  2. geoff says:

    Yeh, straighten her up mate she’ll be right.

    Yes Mr. Fox it is a nice story.

  3. Kilroy Was Here says:

    To everyone who was involved with the landing, restoration and the flight out, “Good Work”…

  4. Osip says:

    So, near disaster was result of accumulator fire? Why was accumulator from Soviet time being used??
    Those responsible should be harshly punished.

  5. Ostyak-Vogul says:

    MMM all what I hear that happen in the Komi Republic is somewhat weird.

  6. Tovarich Volk says:

    Considering the fact that the airframe itself wasn’t damaged, it’s no surprise that the company didn’t decide to scrap the plane. There are more than a few planes here in the US that have suffered mishaps such as this and been rebuilt as well.

  7. Ivan says:

    Those are some really strong landing gears!!!

  8. Uncledoh says:

    how could they even still fly that old junk?

  9. Tom says:

    Those old soviet planes really are made to last.

    The 154’s were designed to land on unpaved strips, so that’s probably why the gear survived so well. You can just imagine a 737 or similar landing there, the wings would be entirely separate from the plane :D

    Tom

  10. Johan Kotze says:

    Great story! Well done! I am sure they had to replace pilot’s seats as well?

  11. robin yates says:

    great post, interesting and informative, thanks

  12. viktor says:

    In Soviet Russia planes don’t crash.

  13. Zonda says:

    This are the nice story of TU-154. When the sentimental value speaks, money doesn’t matter…

  14. mario says:

    so why the Tu154M with Polish President on board was so damaged after landing on the similar area..?

    • Misiek says:

      Because Tu-154M with Polish President crashed in the swamps, not landed. And this plane landed near runway and stopped in the trees, not crashed.

    • Kris says:

      What is the difference between these two crashes? The Russian flight was operating as normal from one of north airport to Moskva. As I know at an altitude of 10,600m the Tu-154 has lost all of its electrical systems including radio and navigation systems, flaps and fuel pumps that deliver fuel from primary tanks on the wings into the central tank that directly feeds the engine.
      After emergency decent below cloud level the crew were able to spot an abandoned air strip near town of Izhma. The abandoned air strip is 1325m, whereas Tu-154 requires a minimum of 2200m. The aircraft came to rest 160m past the end of the runway. It was the main difference- Russian A/C performed almost normal landing whereas Polish airplane contacted upsloping terrain at a distance of about 1100 meters from the runway and 40 m to the left of extended centreline. The aircraft height at that point was 15 m below the level of the runway threshold. The left wing struck a large tree causing the airplane to roll inverted. The Tu-154 crashed and broke up! The immediate cause of the accident was the failure of the crew to take a timely decision to proceed to an alternate airdrome. According to the conclusion made by the pilot-experts and aviation psychologists, the presence of the Commander-in-Chief of the Polish Air Forces in the cockpit until the collision exposed psychological pressure on the PIC’s decision to continue descent in the conditions of unjustified risk with a dominating aim of landing at any means. According to accident reporst cause of the accident was the descent below the minimum descent altitude at an excessive rate of descent in weather conditions which prevented visual contact with the ground, as well as a delayed execution of the go-around procedure. Those circumstances led to an impact on a terrain obstacle resulting in separation of a part of the left wing with aileron and consequently to the loss of aircraft control and eventual ground impact.

      • Tom says:

        “…led to an impact on a terrain obstacle resulting in separation of a part of the left wing…”

        Ha, ha. Unlike the one in the photos above, where the plane never even contacted any “terrain obstacle”, right? Give me a break. One plane loses a wing on a tree, the other cuts a swath in the woods. It doesn’t add up. A humongous lie is what the “Polish” report looks like.

  15. noname says:

    Because was shot

  16. polaczek says:

    this interesting question will last unsolved for more 50-100 years, and than, maybe someone will agree to open some FCB files…

  17. JP2 = jebany cwel says:

    polish TU154M crashed with pretty big tree that could have easily stopped a fully loaded lorry, tress in those pictures look pretty young and weak.

  18. maximor says:

    cuz TU154M crashed before landing… this one just fail to brak after landing

    • petrohof says:

      from the condition of the tires, it braked plenty!! also the red on the tires / wheels are just matching spots to maintain balance of wheel, nothing leaking.

  19. kriemhild says:

    My old man was a pilot, I showed him this and he loved it. He referred to this Tupelov as a “copy” of a 727… to what extent is this true or false? I want objective information and not a bunch of emotive nonsense.

  20. alessio215 says:

    In soviet russia they use planes to chop off trees.
    But seriously? this plane is really tough! A boeing 747 would evaporate to be left in tiny bits

  21. kocsis jános says:

    This and the Hudson river landing what makes me remember well of the days when I flew. My experience (very limited on these types is that the Tu-154 is harder plane to steer than the 727, but aémost a clone in other aspects.

  22. Kasem Abed says:

    great pilot and great luck……

  23. METEORMAN says:

    Those who say that the TU 154 is a copy of the US Boeing 727 are only partly right. They are similar as US planes are built as lightly as possible with the load profit motive as secondary to safety systems, the Soviet philosophy is to not worry about load carrying but build the airframes like Mack trucks for longevity. Their engines needed more frequent maintenance (cheaper than airframe maint)and the Soviet planes needed to be built to handle unpaved runways as the USSR was largely comprised of so many such fields. They were still good planes and served the USSR well but since the end of the Cold War, CIS countries need to use planes that will make a profit, hence so many Western types. I’m an American but mty favorite airliner is still the TU 154. Watching those triple bogie landing gear cycle gives me a big woody!

  24. Spaceflightengineer says:

    Did the bent fan blades get swapped out before getting it airborne again?

  25. A Bouw says:

    basic is simple,, USSR equipment is build to survive the harsh conditions in Russia, Western airplains are build for efficiency, and with modern computersystems calculated… they don’t have the computer sophistication in USSR,, build to be maintained and operated with a spanner and a screwdriver…in that lie’s the difference..

  26. Roland says:

    Russian planes have always been “heavy” so they are easier to make, maintain and also the saying “add 10% just to be on the safe side” – making a mistake could be deadly for the engineer! With every engineer adding 10% weight goes up fast. I love the TU154 and the TU134 also. It is a shame there are none in the UK!!!

Leave a Reply

  • Popular: