Russian plane crashes into road outside Moscow (VIDEO)

[xxMATTGxx]

A Russian passenger plane has crashed into a main road after overshooting a runway at a Moscow airport, killing at least four people, police say.

Reports said there were between eight and 12 crew on board the Red Wings Tupolev-204, flight number RWZ9268, which was landing at Vnukovo airport.

Images of the scene show the aircraft split into several pieces, with the cockpit on the road.

Four people were severely injured, emergency officials said.

The dead were two pilots, a flight engineer and an air stewardess.

The plane's tail and cockpit had broken off but the fuselage was largely intact.

There were fire engines at the scene and smoke could be seen rising from parts of the wreckage.

The plane had arrived in Moscow from the Czech Republic, government officials said.

Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev has ordered an investigation into the cause of the crash.

There was light snow in the area on Saturday afternoon, though it was not known if that played any role.

The BBC's Steve Rosenberg, in Moscow, says investigators are looking into three possible causes - bad weather, technical failure and pilot error.

The Tupolev-204 is a modern Russian passenger jet with a good safety record and a capacity to hold more than 200 passengers.

Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-20865369

Video:


http://youtu.be/hEQdW6yS5o4

[-Nick]

Wow I saw a tweet about this? Looks really bad ;(

[Jordan]

Did sound awful but I question why the people in the car was filming themselves driving anyway unless the runway was a little from the road and they had time to video.

Must of been terrifying for people.

[xxMATTGxx]

Did sound awful but I question why the people in the car was filming themselves driving anyway unless the runway was a little from the road and they had time to video.

Must of been terrifying for people.

A lot of people record themselves driving these days, it's getting quite popular so it could have been luck that he/she was able to capture it.

[Jack!]

A lot of people record themselves driving these days, it's getting quite popular so it could have been luck that he/she was able to capture it.

I have a camera set up in my car, As from a previous incident and I had no evidence, and the case was thrown out, so now I do, should anyone hit me etc while I am driving.

[zombies]

Woah, scary stuff!

[jackass]

Did sound awful but I question why the people in the car was filming themselves driving anyway unless the runway was a little from the road and they had time to video.

Must of been terrifying for people.

As far as i'm aware in Russia all the cars have mounted cameras for insurance purposes.

[Grig]

As far as i'm aware in Russia all the cars have mounted cameras for insurance purposes.

Nope, I'm Russian and my car has no such thing. Although I do take a risk the way the driving in Moscow is.

I have a house close to Vnukovo, and drive on those roads, it's scary to think something like that could happen. Although from what I could tell, it was all pilot error. The plane in question had a very good safety record.

The driver of the jeep was an extremely good driver, to be able to swerve such debris like that.

[Nige]

This is why I hate flying, nothing is safe, R.I.P to those who lost their lives.

[Grig]

This is why I hate flying, nothing is safe, R.I.P to those who lost their lives.

That's a defunct argument. You have more chance of getting killed in a car crash than on a plane!

[Nige]

That's a defunct argument. You have more chance of getting killed in a car crash than on a plane!

Wasn't pointing it out to be an argument, I was just saying in general that nothing is every safe these days.

[Eric]

Thank god there were no passengers

[Grig]

Thank god there were no passengers

Yeh, I don't get why the company does that though. Waste of money running an empty plane back to their base. But this is very true, it could have been far worse.


Wasn't pointing it out to be an argument, I was just saying in general that nothing is every safe these days.

Just stay in bed :P!

[Nige]

Yeh, I don't get why the company does that though. Waste of money running an empty plane back to their base. But this is very true, it could have been far worse.



Just stay in bed :P!

Every Airline company does it, like you say it's a waste of full.

.. and it's 1.19 in the afternoon, I never stay in bed after 7am.

[Grig]

Every Airline company does it, like you say it's a waste of full.

.. and it's 1.19 in the afternoon, I never stay in bed after 7am.

You do realize I was not being literal... lol

And not every one, especially now where fuel prices have skyrocketed. :)

[xxMATTGxx]

Do not assume it's pilot error until a full investigation has been done. I know a certain person from the Russian side of things has already said that but I bet they forgot to mention that this specific aircraft type had an issue with breaks and reverse thrust this month also.

In terms of it having no passengers. There was more than the pilots on board but yes it wasn't a full on passenger flight. Airliners often ferry back their planes to airports they need them at - It's like diving buses to certain depots, trucks to certain warehouses and boats to certain ports.

[Grig]

Do not assume it's pilot error until a full investigation has been done. I know a certain person from the Russian side of things has already said that but I bet they forgot to mention that this specific aircraft type had an issue with breaks and reverse thrust this month also.

In terms of it having no passengers. There was more than the pilots on board but yes it wasn't a full on passenger flight. Airliners often ferry back their planes to airports they need them at - It's like diving buses to certain depots, trucks to certain warehouses and boats to certain ports.

It is a standard practice, but not an efficient one.

Also, the particular model of the plane is by no means dodgy, it was a good piece of engineering. No incidents in the past and they have been producing them since the 1980s. Although of course, like you say it is all speculation and there needs to be a thorough investigation.

[xxMATTGxx]

It is a standard practice, but not an efficient one.

Also, the particular model of the plane is by no means dodgy, it was a good piece of engineering. No incidents in the past and they have been producing them since the 1980s. Although of course, like you say it is all speculation and there needs to be a thorough investigation.

I never called it dodgy, I'm just aware that the aircraft type had issues with braking and reverse thrust earlier on this month and they asked the manufacturers for advice on the matter. It's not the same exact plane but it could be some what linked and a fault with the design of the aicraft. If it turns out to be that of course.

---------- Post added 30-12-2012 at 01:48 PM ----------

Just before the event happened (from what I am aware of):

http://russianplanes.net/images/to95000/094178.jpg

[Grig]

I never called it dodgy, I'm just aware that the aircraft type had issues with braking and reverse thrust earlier on this month and they asked the manufacturers for advice on the matter. It's not the same exact plane but it could be some what linked and a fault with the design of the aicraft. If it turns out to be that of course.

Yeh the incidents are more associated with the company's older models. Would be interesting to find out, but that'll take quite a while.

Interestingly though, Russia has 3 times more air incidents that the average mean elsewhere!

[xxMATTGxx]

Yeh the incidents are more associated with the company's older models. Would be interesting to find out, but that'll take quite a while.

Interestingly though, Russia has 3 times more air incidents that the average mean elsewhere!

Not surprised by that fact. Mostly due to the safety regulations and the aircraft they have built during the many years. Although they are improving to match up with the standards you would find in aircraft built in the western countries.

[Grig]

Not surprised by that fact. Mostly due to the safety regulations and the aircraft they have built during the many years. Although they are improving to match up with the standards you would find in aircraft built in the western countries.

Things are improving, the country's main company Aeroflot had a massive re-brand, took all its old Russian built aircraft out of service and ordered tons of news Airbuses and Boeings. Now the average age of their fleet is 4 years.

But many smaller local companies fly with old, uneconomical and unsafe Soviet-era planes.

[xxMATTGxx]

I won't take this 100% until it has been fully confirmed it was the case for the overrun/crash.

But Sky News just tweeted out:


Reuters: Faulty brakes may be to blame in Russian plane crash according to member of investigating team

[The Don]

Yeh, I don't get why the company does that though. Waste of money running an empty plane back to their base. But this is very true, it could have been far worse.

The planes have to make it back for connecting flights. Even if there's no passengers, chances are the next flight will have passengers so the plane needs to be at that airport to pick them up.

[Rachel]

It's terrible :(

[Grig]

The planes have to make it back for connecting flights. Even if there's no passengers, chances are the next flight will have passengers so the plane needs to be at that airport to pick them up.

That's clear, I was echoing that it's an uneconomic practice in most cases.

[xxMATTGxx]

That's clear, I was echoing that it's an uneconomic practice in most cases.

Cargo airlines are probably the worst for it. They often put a plane in the sky empty just encase one of the other planes that would depart with cargo goes tech. Although there is good reasons why they do it but I can see why people would be mad about it in regards of money/fuel/environment and whatever else.

[Shockwave.2CC]

I'll say what i said on Facebook

****