On a more serious note. Your knowledge of the aviation industry is invaluable. It covers such a wide scope, from technical to economical, to historical knowledge and on top of that, the way you translate that knowledge to us (the common folk) is an achievement in it's own rights. Thank you for that.
Those kind of generic comments that don't even talk about what happens in the video really sound like they are made by bots or fake users paid to "generate engagement". Big shame because it really detracts and lowers the quality of the conversation in the comments.
@tank-eleven Sorry to burst your bubble but I'm no bot. Why is it that these days everything has to be drawn into the negative. It was just a nice comment to Petter, who has given us a ton of interesting content over the past years. Nothing more, nothing less. Have a nice day in your negative and suspicious world.
"You attention, please. Trans American Flight 209 non-stop from Los Angeles is now arriving at Gate seven...Gate eight... ...209 arriving gate thirteen...gate fourteen....gate fifteen... ...gate twenty-three...twenty four... twenty-five..." Airplane!, 1980
I really enjoy your aviation analysis. I got my private pilot license in October 1968 in Allentown Pennsylvania. In the mid 90's I was a flight dispatcher for aeroflot and air Ukraine at O'Hare in Chicago. I was dispatching illyshun 62-m an later they switched to Boeing aircraft There were 5 pilots/crew in the cockpit. I was offered free round trips to Moscow
You forgot to mention that Aeroflot, for fear of having their aircraft impounded by the lessors, had decided to outright purchase the aircraft they were leasing but only the aircraft necessary for flying international routes, such as Turkey, Thailand, etc... since that's where the impounding may happen. This involves a little more than a handful of Airbus A330-300 and Boeing 777-300ER and some A320 aircraft.
@@XB10001 Are you thinking about the word Lessor? That means the people leasing them the planes. Edit: For example a landlord is a lessor who leases property.
did they really buy the aircraft from lessors? Last time I checked, the Russians basically stole the airplanes by not returning them or refusing to pay the lease.
Hello Mentour, I'm from Russia (inside). I must say that most of what you've highlighted is spot on. But the problems with Russian aviation was way before the sanctions even happened. The issue is that the government control and supervision over this industry is not that strong as one might think. Aeroflot, S7 and others are private companies and they generally like to shuffle the data and facts quite well. I don't think that I will say something extraordinary, but the management of the companies is oriented on maximising the profits for their owners be it even at the expense of other things. And authorities are somewhat "castrated" in this regard, unless some accident actually really happens. It's not like during the USSR period, when things were very strict. Therefore I was very reluctant to fly with these airlines in the past. And since the sanctions came up - flying with them became a big "no-no". I prefer the railway, which has almost a military discipline when it comes down to safety, maintenance and precision. Technically, it's a miracle that Russian Railways maintained the sort of approach, which was instilled from the times it was under the supervision of Ministry of Interior during WWII. On the fact that Aeroflot doesn't want to disclose their suppliers - even if we might not like it from the point of view "transparency for the sake of safety" they still have solid reasons for that. Because once they disclose their sources those sources will be hit by Western persecution. So it's in their own commercial interest to keep it silent.
@@josephboen178 In the aviation it's not about lack of spare parts - it's about lack of transparency from the side of companies, lack of their internal discipline, which is the result of lack of tedious control from the side of authorities. Therefore the companies start taking it easy on the safety part. Something like Boeing according to recent news. When it comes to railways - simply put, the internal discipline is rolling as it was set during WWII. For some reason it didn't properly change when things went down the tubes in 90's. Almost a military discipline inside. In comparison the aviation has seriously dropped down in this regard. Though it is tough inside there, but if comparing the USSR period and nowadays - the former was on a top notch level. If you are interested if there is a general problem in spare parts? Nope. Doesn't matter - heavy machinery, personal cars, buses, ships... There were no issues at all. In the beginning there was a small gap due to logistics readjustments (only 2-3 months), but before the stock was depleted the deliveries were going in steadily already. I'm dealing professionally with heavy industries and nobody ever mentioned any issues.
@@Jaromir-Druzba hey man, fellow Russian here. You say that aviation was on a "top-notch" level during Soviet times, but I'm not sure that I agree with you. Even when you simply compare the amount of serious accidents that happened during Soviet times and in recent Russian history. We all of course have heard about the "legendary" (for all the wrong reasons) 1994 A310 crash, the Perm incident in I think 2009 or thereabouts, and the SSJ-100 accident in 2019, but otherwise at the very least Aeroflot hasn't been involved in too many serious incidents outside of the ones that I just cited (please correct me if I'm wrong), though there have been incidents involving other airlines, the military, the MES and so on. With all of that being said - how much do you know about incidents that occurred during Soviet times? Have you heard about that crash when the PIC made a wager claiming he could land the aircraft essentially blindfolded, using just his instruments (which he was almost even able to pull off, but didn't, spoiler - that story had a spectacularly horrible ending)? Or about the crash when the Omsk air traffic controller fell asleep while on the job? There were quite a few accidents that occurred during the Soviet era, I'm perplexed as to why you would claim that things were better during those times. As for me - well, I don't enjoy flying all that much, but right now Aeroflot seems to be a very solid company. On the rare occasions when I do fly - I'm inclined to overpay and go with Aeroflot (yes, they do charge more than most other Russian airlines, but for good reason, as far as I can tell). I used to fly with Ural airlines, but they were pretty bad even before sanctions, and my last flight with them after the war started was downright sketchy, I'll actively try to avoid stepping onto one of their planes ever again.
Recently, an Airbus captain who flies for, I believe, American Airlines, discussed his latest recurrent training session which essentially modeled these MEL scenarios with the brakes, and it was the first time he dealt with these parameters and he found it fascinating. Another consideration you had to address was the fact that you couldn’t raise the gear immediately so you have to find ways to prevent automatic responses while taking off like putting a piece of paper on the handle to remind you about timing 1 minute before raising the gear. Given the timing, it appears the training department was probably also paying attention to this news in Russia, giving them new ideas for training scenarios.
_Given the timing, it appears the training department was probably also paying attention to this news in Russia, giving them new ideas for training scenarios._ Good training department there because they are learning from real world even if in this case the real world examples come from the absolutely stupidity of russia.
If you MEL a brake, the reason to wait for one minute before raising the gear is to allow the wheel to spin-down before it is retracted into the wheel well. Normally, after the aircraft achieves takeoff, but before the gear is fully retracted, the brakes are actuated to snub the wheels and stop them from rotating. With no brake for that wheel, no snubbing occurs, so you must wait.
11:25 Thanks for addressing this, there's so many bots everywhere. I think you're the first channel that i watch that has mentioned this. To many people they seem like obvious scams, but the fact that they're still here seems to indicate that people still fall for it.
They pop up everywhere and everywhere I have seen them the video has warned about them. So I guess it depends on the quality of the channels you watch.
@@57thornsOr OP just didn't watch the one video addressing the problem. Most channels only mention it one time (just like Mentour so far IIRC). So it's not that unlikely that OP just missed that one video for the channels they are talking about.
@@Jehty_ I don't watch a (whole) lot of "talking people" channels, most of them are space/nature documentaries and podcasts, that aren't plagued by these bots. But channels like Formula 1, or Adam Savage's Tested, or Kim Iversen and a couple of those have not addressed it. (EDIT: Not even Sabine Hossenfelder, unless i did happen to skip that 1 video where she addressed it. Also, i've never fallen for it myself, and i usually report the bots as well, so it's probably also dependent on the audience.)
Well, a Ural Air A320 crash-landed in a field in the middle of nowhere a couple of hours ago, with everyone surviving, and the aircraft too pretty much in one piece, following a total hydraulic failure. If ever there was a well-timed piece, yours was it :)
I just watched press brief from CEO of Ural air. According to him, due to hydraulics malfanction captan decided to land plane on the spare airport with wider airfield. But, in the flight he realised that becasue of landing gears and flaps had been released, the fuel tanks were almost empty, so he decided to land on nearest visible field. I'm curios if when making the decission to fly to the spare ariport captan should make fuel calulations, considering released flaps and landing gear? Was there captan mistake or just lack of the procedere?
@@СергейЗиборов-ш5с Looks like the PIC will have his butt kicked, because he apparently flew that entire leg from Omsk at FL150 or some such, and quite slowly, which means that he'd have been mushing, for whatever reason. That's enough to upset any fuel burn calculations, what?
According to the video released 3 hrs ago by Russian channel Редакция (Redaktsya), "Аварийная посадка А-320 под Новосибирском" (Emergency Landing of A-320 Near Novosibirsk, ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Y6L45RQubn0.html), all we know for sure now is "it landed safely and no one was hurt". Also, the commenting author (Aleksiey Pivovarov, Алексей Пивоваров) has a pilot licence himself ("I'm a former pilot" he said - but he isn't a commercial pilot). So, apparently/ reportedly just prior to landing (reportedly at "few hundred metres" altutude; AFAIK in Russia they use metric system for flying) in Omsk (the destination) pilots reported "some issue with hydraulics" ("but we don't know whether it was Mayday or Pan Pan Pan" said Mr Pivovarov), and the conversation between the pilot and ATC (at 5:08 in the abovementioned video) was as follow: - 1383, we have an issue with hydraulics... we lost hydraulics. Now we'll go to waiting zone (i.e. "we'll be flying in circles trying to resolve the issue/ go through checklists" - forgot how this is called in English), and then I'll suggest/ advise you [what we'll do next] and then (still the pilot): - 1383, we decided [that we'll go] to Novosibirsk To which the control tower responded: - 1383, understood. To Novosibirsk. But no specific info what the failure was, and to what extent was provided (A320 has triple redundancy hydraulic system, however no one of them can substitute the failed one(s) in their entirety - according to info in the video). Novosibirsk is over 600 km (370+ mi/ 320+ nautical miles) from Omsk, which seems like an awfull lot for "alternative airport" but then it's Siberia, so towns and big airports are few and far between - and the reason the pilot decid to go there was the runway length, 2501 m/ 8205 ft in Omsk and 3597 m/ 11801 ft in Novosibirsk (the weather was about the same in both places, so it wasn't probably the deciding factor). And since the plane landed with flaps and spoilers (partially) deployed, which are operated by hydraulics, it can be assumed that the failure happened after they deployed them on preparation for landing in Omsk, and thus they flown the entire route toward Novosibirsk with flaps extended (and probably with extended landing gear as well - as they landed on it), which may be the reason they run out of fuel way before Novosibirsk. But then "those are only speculations and conjectures as we have very little of solid information" as Mr. Pivovarov said, and then the MAK/ IAC (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Aviation_Committee) will probably produce, as usuall, the report "in accordance with expectations from powers that be". There's another video by Redaktsya about "in Russia" airplane crash and the "fog and doubts" surrounding it and the official findings - "Crash of Tu-154: Why did Doctor Liza and Alexandrov Ensemble die?", with English CC (ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-eajw5bDtv74.html). In this case - as it's ALWAYS the case in case of pilots perishing in the crash - the ICA report blames pilot(s) for the crash, even though there were witness reports about "explosion" - but then the objective truth is not what is valued most in Russia, so we may probably never learn what actually happened with Ural Airlines flight 1383.
@@СергейЗиборов-ш5с Yes, they miscalculated the fuel consumption. The airline is now bragging about their 24h pilot training center, which allowed them to safely land on a field for the second time... They sure can land well, but they can't think well. There is also a theory that they did this, because there is S7 Technics in OVB.
@@СергейЗиборов-ш5с "land plane on the spare airport with wider airfield." Thank you! I read the small newsitem about this, and couldn't figure out what this was really about (and was too lazy to check avherald). BTW, I think that in English "spare airport" should be "alternate" or "alternative" airport.
@@annrn6148 That that's what will lead to an incident soon, most likely. That flight where the autobrakes are disabled ( as required ) and it needed them.
Telegram is not a Russian social media platform - it's an encrypted messenger with the option of some public broadcast chanels. Yes, it was developed by 2 Russian brothers - both not really on good terms with the Kremlin to put it mildly. For some reason that messenger is very popular with certain people who love to spread nonsense there on some of their public chanels - but that's not really any different to Twitter, Instagram and so on except that it's on a messenger platform and not a dedicated social media platform like the aforementioned. It's still a messenger first
The Moscow Times is not "bragging" about Russia. They are an independent newspaper that was forced to move their editorial board out of Russia and now operates out of Amsterdam.
Great analysis, that’s exactly the case. I work for one of the russian airlines and we had about one week flying some aircraft with one brake deactivated, but spare brakes soon arrived. Nevertheless, the situation becomes worse, especially with PW1100 engines, we expect about a half of our fleet to be grounded in a month or two.
@@VergilAckerman P&W 1100 engines are found on the A320neo only, conclusion: you work for Aeroflot, as that's the only Russian carrier which operates the type in the aforementioned numbers (S7, Ural and Smartavia also operates the type, however - unless I'm very much mistaken - they don't have 30 aircraft to ground to begin with). What do you reckon, will you be able to continue operations until the MC-21 arrives in sufficent numbers (we're talking about 1-3 years), even if that means cannibalizing the grounded aircraft for spares, or will you have to part ways with the type earlier than that?
@@IGLArocknroll I think that MC-21 is a no go, there is no way in foreseeable future this aircraft will start commercial operations, it depends too much on western technology. In my personal opinion it will take decades for Russia to replace western tech with domestic one. So, conclusion: the future is very grim for russian pilots and russian aviation.
@@VergilAckerman The original MC-21-300 variant depends on Western tech (50% of it comes from abroad, if my sources are right) but as far as I'm informed: Aeroflot will receive the MC-21-310 variant (which would enter service in 2024 or 2025, but I expect some delays), and that variant would replace every sanctioned component to a Russian and/or Chinese one. Either that, or you'll have to reactivate the old Tu-154M, while you ramp up the production of the Tu-204-300, or the Sukhoi Superjet 130NG as you don't have any other viable options left, when it comes to similar sized (i.e.: able to seat 160-190 pax, and have a 5-6000km range) airliners. Ceasing flight operations, using either larger (IL-96) or smaller (IL-114, An-148) aircraft on the existing routes, or kowtowing in front of the West is definetly not an option. The Comac C919 contains Western-made parts (engines, avionics, etc.), the Embraer E-Jet too (not to mention that this one is smaller than an A320neo), and every other similarly sized aircraft is manufactured in a country which sanctions Russia. So, conclusion: your best bet would be to stick with the MC-21.
Swiss Cheese model --- We use many layers of safety, so unless everything lines up against us, we will remain safe Russian Cheese model -- As long as there's still a slice of cheese left.... go for it.
You've d again, Peter. Another fascinating and informative video. I'm very pleased you reviewed the situation in Russia, I have recently wondered what it's status has been. Gee in Sonoma, CA
One of the main operational consequences apart the landing distance and take off calculations is that on the A320 you cannot raise the gear before one minute after take off, as the affected wheel is not braked before entering the wheel well and you have to wait till the wheels stops spinning by itself.
Actually, just today there was an accident with another Russian airline "Ural Airlines". Their Airbus A320 crash-landed in a field near the russian town of Novosibirsk. Interestingly some years ago the plane of the same airline (!) crash-landed in a corn field minutes after takeoff from Moscow ZIA airport. Since in both cases no one died (!) the pilots in the latter accident were quickly proclaimed as heroes, but the report that was leaked some time later (it has never been officially published) actually put a lot of criticism on pilots. I think this will make for an interesting video some time later ;)
Just in case, “Moscow times” is an opposition/non-RU-state-affiliated press outlet, so they have no intention to “brag” about Aeroflot “tricks” at all, rather than attract attention to emerging wild procedures which significantly harms flight safety.
Moscow Times is run by a Dutchman. The newspaper was run from Moscow, but the owner and reporters were forced to flee Russia when the war started, so they are based in Amsterdam now. They are frequently interviewed on Dutch public radio.
To be more clear: Moscow times has nothing to do with Moscow or times))) This is a media nest sponsored by highly "anti Russian" forces, so you can divide all that was spoken by 10. Just like with any "official" media.
Back in '69 (I was barely two years old) ...we ended up landing at Shannon (on the second attempt, after flying over the beach with our wing pointed at it) ...some brake part had fallen off over the sea... - I have such vivid memories of the plane cavorting down the runway, swaying from side to side as the pilot managed to stop successfully... from a toddlers viewpoint, being chased by fire engines while in a plane was fabulous... - maybe you could look that one up (when you are stopped over at Shannon)...
@@grmpEqweer - SURE! ...all the grown ups were sobbing and playing bo-bo time with pillows ...my mum was trying to keep hold of me as I managed to jump up and enjoy the ride and wave at the fire engine... - being a kid that knew nowt was an asset, - the same landing now would end my life...
I was flying to Piza, when we were diverted to Rome, where we saw the runway lined with crash emergency vehicles. Some passenger yelled That's for us! Starting a panic. The crew really should have told us the landing gear warning light had engaged and that was a precaution as the gear had descended. .the screaming put me off flying for life.
Having lived in a country that was once heavily sanctioned. There is so much propoganda it's extremely difficult for the average citizen to know the truth. However what I'm more certain of is that sanctions created not only our independence but also into competitive suppliers with similar or improved quality. In the short term sanctions hurts but in the medium to long term it can make you stronger. For a country that was once leading the space race I do not believe that parts for a brakes or any parts of a ordinary aeroplane being much of a serious obstacle to overcome.
Brake pads are least of their problem when it comes to western supplied parts for their airlines in the long run. Even their own domestic made airliners use western engines, western avionics and lots of other stuff from landing gears to cabin windows. Odds are that when they go full domestic suppliers on their own airliners, they aren't going to export anything outside few countries sanctioned by the West like North Korea or Cuba. Their domestic market might not be enough to justify development costs. Especially engines are expensive to make and develop, there is a reason why there is so few jet engine manufacturers.
As a truck driver, we always avoid using brakes, instead using the engine brake as much as possible. Saves fuel, saves on brake pads, saves over heating on wheel bearings & grease. But the brakes are always there & working if they're needed.
The engine not introducing fuel when the Jake is on is good enough. The fuel savings are not significant over small distances, but over the 50,000-100,000 a truck driver can easily drive in a year, the small savings do add up. Some truckers even go 4,000+ miles a week for months on end. The savings really add up then.
@@edc1569 The idea is that on a fuel injected engine, the injectors turn off completely when engine braking. Though in that sense, the time spent engine braking is time saved not idling the engine. A semi truck can run on idle for days. So it's not that much saved in the actual engine braking phase. However, since the trucker is engine braking he's also more likely to plan ahead and drive strategically / tactically. Not braking when just reaching a traffic light for instance but rather start slowing down long before it because the light is still red. Reaching the light too soon means having to come to a full stop where slowing down ahead of time still leaves you rolling when the light turns green again. THAT saves insane amounts of fuel for a truck. It's the acceleration phase that gulps up most fuel. Cruising on the highways uses very little fuel, unless you are in a hill climb. And going downhill on the engine brake saves a lot of brake pads and reduces risks with brake fatigue almost completely. It of course also saves the fuel that would otherwise have been used to idle the engine and there are mountains that take up to an hour to descend completely so it's one hour less of idling. Which ranges from 0.6 gallons to 1.5 gallons saved. It's a small saving that may happen once a day, but that can add upp eventually. Still, the most savings are to be had from never slowing down needlessly so that you never accelerate needlessly afterwards.
The way you pronounced Leipzig was so on spot for the local dialect... "Leipzish" - it wasn't proper German, but in this case, it was even more correct and funny! Saxon dialect is one of the strong ones - since "no dialect" standard high German derived from the Hannover dialect since it was the Grimm brothers from the Northern part of German with their first German dictionary. And another funny fact: Duden, the current standard for German comes from Leipzig. One of the big differences was that all nouns (not just proper nouns as in English) are capitalized in German, but weren't originally in the Grimm dictionary.
Ich dachte auf sächsisch wird "Leipzig" "Läpsisch" ausgesprochen. So wie "gänsefleisch mal den Kofferruhm uffmache" (Können Sie vielleicht mal den kofferraum aufmachen)
As far as I understand it, Petter, the kMoscow Times' is not a state-sanctioned publication, so they might be telling the truth, rather than toeing the party line and publishing what they are instructed to say. Ironically, the name of the official publication, Правда (Pravda) means 'Truth'. It's a real misnomer.
With all the admiration I have for this channel, I find disconcerting that no Russian content appears on this video (with the exception of a dutch generalist journal's article @ 10:32 ). May I ask if Russian sources, materials and documents have been accurately studied during the making of this video (and translated by an aviation specialist) : such as (anonymous) technicians and pilots interviews, technical / incident reports, or at least aviation news articles ? If not, then as a passenger, I'd feel that I haven't been provided with a full picture of the problem, and I'd then possibly question the ethics of this content. / Thanks for a wonderful video and channel, Sir !
@@guillaume8483 Well, as I explained in the video, the Russian sources are nowadays withholding quite a bit of information and what is there, from within the country is hard to verify and often modified to suit the governments agenda. I’m any case, this video explained why the articles about Russian aircraft, flying without brakes was NOT true. So I’m not sure what else those Russian sources would have said.
It should be noted that nearly all of the countries enforcing the sanctions against Russia are Europe, Australia, Japan, United States, and Canada. The rest are either neutral or siding with Russia. These countries are definitely not being sanctioned (yet) so it would be very easy for spare parts to be sent through these countries, perhaps with secret manufacturer approval and/or strict security measures to prevent counterfeit parts. These countries aren't necessarily known for their transparency either, so they could easily hide the documentation, then whenever the war ends, show that the parts in these planes were officially-sourced and therefore safe.
A couple of decades ago the Big Airline that I worked for ran short of A320 brake units (I think it was a problem with the external overhaul company). For a number of weeks we were operating most of the fleet on three brake units per aircraft. In fact I am fairly sure serviceable aircraft had a unit removed to fit on those that had a second failure. There were, as you mention, a large number of restrictions on the operation.
Aeroflot is flying B777 into Malé Airport in the Maldives on a regular basis. When they land, they use the entire runway length, and it appears they are fond of aerodynamic braking... (Edit: Spelling mistake corrected.)
@@swanvictor887how so? Indian and pacific ocean nations are almost all that's left for russuan tourists wanting some tropical holidays, maldives are extremely popular tourist destination in that regard for asia, europe and america alike.
I mean using reversers for every landing as a SOP could reduce brake wear, at the cost of fuel burn (probably not an issue in RU) and possibly some increased engine wear.
And this is how you end up with the ryanair procedures. They try to extend the livespan of brakes using more reverse thrust. But the difference is, ryanair replaces worn brakes.
The biggest issue would be the engine wear and an increased chance to ingest foreign objects from the ground, I'd believe. And you are cutting down safety margins.....
@@luelou8464 It will mate. And the largest problem is still the extra chance of ingesting something off the ground. There is a reason why it is not standard practice done by all airlines.
You probably will be surprised, but russian airliners are mostly private companies and are striving to reduce fuel burn. Russia is a wealthy country, but that wealth is in a hands of a very few people. For example, the average salary of a doctor in Russia is around 400$ monthly, an airline captain’s around 3500$.
This is why it's so important to have your own manufacturing capabilities in your own country. If Russia would've put some tariffs on imported passenger airplanes, they would've still had their own aviation industry, and none of these sanctions would mean much.
Sanctions should never be applied towards civilian aviation and in any country. It's not the civilians in any country choosing to go into war or pay the price and gamble with their safety due to its government.
Well these people could just chose not to fly, if it is not safe. I do not feel sorry for the civilians over there, their inaction toward what is happening is enabling their dictator ....
@@JohnDoe-bd5sz Completely agree. Most of them where totally happy with annexion of Crimea in 2014 and now also only little protests against all the crimes which execute those "normal" rusians. But this time something went wrong and suddenly they playing victims. You earn your government.
@@savaasja5224 There is a saying in my country that, translates to something like. He who remains silent, consents. I think this is a very accurate and powerful saying that fits the situation right now, very well.
The thing is, if you want to maintain aviation safety, you don't put sanctions on this sector. Or if you do, you don't claim that you are worried about the safety. Kind of "we will cut the water supply to your home, but as we are worried so much about your heath, we will not let you get out and drink from the lake." Isn't it absurd?
Russian MEL in 2025 for all types: -Fuselage, required for dispatch 1. -Working engines, Required for dispatch 1. May be inoperative after top of descent. - Wings, required for dispatch 2. May be inoperative when not airborne.
As someone who have friends in Russia, sanctions shouldn't apply for something that would put ordinary citizens in danger. Not only it hurt the wrong people, but it put them in danger as well.
Really appreciate your nuanced, expert commentary. On a more pessimistic note, I hope that no nation states decide to increase the asymmetric warfare profile to infiltrate the grey market with deliberately sabotaged parts.
There you go. Todays Aviation Herald reports Ural A320 green hydraulic failure, ran out of fuel and landed in a field. Fortunately everyone survived but might not be so lucky next time. Read the article it ties up with exactly what you reported in your video. Thank you for a very informative video
If you still remember the days of the soviet union you might know, that they had a very long tradition in building their own aircrafts. And not all of them were bad. Yes, in the last years Boeing and Airbus took over the market of passenger aircrafts almost completely. But as you can see in China and even in Russia western sanctions lead to massive investments in national developments of creating and building aircrafts of their own. In the end these sanction will not lead to any business malfunction in these countries, in the long run it will lead to losses of market shares for Boeing and Airbus, when companies like COMAC from China or Ilyushin take over.
19:40 _"[Iran's] safety record has been far from ideal..."_ This may or may not be true, but it's certainly not supported by the article shown. The PS-752 crash was of a Ukrainian airliner, not an Iranian one. Further, one would have expected aircraft from almost any airline (including all North American and European ones, as far as I'm aware) to have crashed had they been subject to similar circumstances. Commercial airliners simply do not fare well when hit by two surface-to-air missiles explicitly designed to shoot down aircraft, and I don't think anybody considers this to be a safety failure on the part of the airlines.
@@MentourNow I do hope you'll be swatting those Russophobic comments in your videos such as this then. Not encouraging them. To remain an educative, un-biased channel I learnt to like so much dear Mentour.
I think it deserves to be said that the probable main reason Aeroflot isn't mentioning their suppliers, is because those suppliers would get sanctioned by western powers if they found out who was supplying Russia with parts. If that happened, Russia would either require counterfeit parts, or fly without them altogether. I can't blame Aeroflot for withholding the names of their suppliers.
A slight correction. Telegram is not Russian. Its owner is a Russian citizen that has many other citizenships as well and actually left Russia to be able to operate independently.
If they actually cared about their self-sufficiency, they could develop their own brake replacement parts. They have competent engineers who can do it. They’d have to go with steel brake discs and pay more for fuel, but fuel is what they got plenty.
Oh, I imagine they are doing that already, working perhaps with the Chinese, maybe buying their 3D printers at inflated prices etc. But at the end of the day, they will not have the skills, time or correct materials to make something with the same integrity as the original part. It will keep the flying....until it doesn't.
So to be clear. What countries DO have their own (not an alliance or any other bull***t) big aircraft manufacturing capabilities? US (Boeing) and Russia. So don't underestimate that. They still produce homebrew airplanes and reached some success (fully domestic/Chinese Superjet, mc-21, etc) So what we should really investigate is how long will Airbus exist. Germany, France and England are now in their worst shape EVER. It's clear that the US is getting the most "cream" out of what is happening right now in Europe. So the question is more likely to be: will the Air-France and Lufthansa fly Boeings or SUs when all of this madness is over?
They are making their own parts too. I don't know which parts they are smuggling and which they are making themselves, but both methods of obtaining parts are being used.
Russian can build weapons to destroy the “amazing” NATO equipment, but there are no able to build brakes for a plane? Sorry, what is wrong with you guys?
I just watched this two days ago, and then a Russian plane had to land in a field, so your video had excellent timing. I would love to hear your thoughts about the Ural Airlines plane 😄
Is not problem, Comrade!!! Soviet engineers have solution! Drink Vodka! Make Deep piles of snow at end of runway! Plane Lands, Plane skids, Heroic comrade pilot points plane in straight line while drinking vodka! Plane hits snow! Plane stops! Pull out with chain and more vodka! dust off plane! problem solved, Comrade! (well, darn it, somebody had to say this)
Yeah, funny. If everyone in the West who was making critical comments of Russia had to fear polonium poisoning, Russians would have to make a couple of kilograms of the material.
If it has four or six wheels & two brakes are deactivated at a time, one on each side, to keep the brakes balanced, you can do this for a good while... Until it skids off the runway....
I would never fly aeroflot anyways, they have 6000+ passenger deaths to their name, whilst western airlines, even the oldest in the world are around 1500 or less.
But for the west it might be considered "unlulckily" that there are no casualties. Sanctioning airplane spare parts is effectivly targeting for human casualties. Usual western faggot logic.
CFM is suing AOG Technics over the counterfeit parts work. That and the reputational damage will put them out of business. If the sanctions won’t stop you, the lawsuits will.
@@Dirk-van-den-Berg True. However, if you can fake paper work to cover the source of parts, you can do it to cover the destination. Petter mentioned the UK supply (AT) in today’s video. That company also falsified employee histories and installation documents. No one knows for sure where all of those parts are today.
This was an excellent video. You took your time, researched into the matter and presented the whole picture in a way everyone can understand, with a lot of additional background info.
Thanks a lot for this video Petter! We in Russia do not know exactly what is the true situation with our civil aviation. Especially the situation with safety. Now I have understanding what is the situation like. At least for the time being.
Honestly, I personally wouldn't step foot on a Russian made passenger plane, they cut corners too much, I wouldn't say it was on the mechanics, I've worked with Russian educated techs n I gotta say, the education they had was good and they were some the best techs I'd worked with, I'd say it's on the company cutting corners....
flown with a couple of same and survived (tuplev tu 134, 154 and illusyn il-62). russian stuff usually is build in mind with that attitude. problem starts, when top down order come as well that force pilot's in risky situation.
Their boeings and airbusses will be just as dangerous to be on. Their designs or manufacture aren't fundamentally bad, just saying e.g. the ilyushin il-96 has had 0 fatalities in 34 years since its first flight. But with shoddy or no maintenance even the best designs become death traps. I wouldn't step on an Aeroflot Boeing or Airbus either. Maybe a bit nitpicky but I'd change it to wouldn't step on a russian maintained aircraft of any type ;)
@@InnSewerAnts To be honest, i would no fly with a Russian maintained airbus or Boeing. But for there own planes they have parts and they know there fellow countryman. Hence those tend to be quite safe.
18:14 The Moscow Times did not BRAG about Aeroflot cutting costs. It is not a Russian newspaper, for Russians, spreading propaganda. Yes, It is a newspaper in Russian, but aimed at foreign citizens of Russia. They have been under scrutiny by the Russian gouvernement since it’s very inception. The newspaper is founded by a Dutchman and he has been living back in The Netherlands since the Ukraine war broke out for obvious reasons. So it is not bragging about Aeroflot cutting costs, it is merely stating facts.
Point of view of an aircraft maintenance engineer: The reason why individual brakes can be deferred is that if one e.g. find a brake with a hydraulic leak on some outstation, one can still get the planr back to a station with maintenance, where the brake can be changed. Though I know quite few airlines, which use the MEL creatively to avoid spending money on spare parts.
Again I remember quite a number of storys verbally told of planes (md80 I guess) flown within MEL but with this or that part missing or inoperative. And seemed almost a rule in the late operative times of certain models
The MEL is an FAA-approved document which is in effect (subject to updating) from day one of a type's entry into service. The only thing which might change with age is the extent to which it is used. If for example an MD-80 or whatever hops from Houston to DFW on a dry-runway day, one thing it most definitely does not need in order to complete a safe flight is thrust reversers.
If official spare parts I’m sure the source can easily be traced as a carrier or country has a sudden surge for specific parts that does not match their aircraft and historic use. Fraudulent parts are the most likely and therefore only a matter of time before a catastrophic accident.
We've been hearing that for soon two years now and so far AFL's route network has only increased. With no notable incidents to speak of. How's that for 'crippling sanctions', eh?
Question for anyone knowledgeable: do airliner brakes usually get replaced as they wear out, 1 wheel at a time? Or in symmetrical/mirrored pairs or sets - e.g., if the leftmost outermost wheel has worn-out brakes, does the _rightmost_ outermost wheel necessarily get new brakes too? Is it more common to simultaneously replace all brakes on the same "axle" line★ along with the wheel with below-spec brakes? Do they just replace all fronts together and all rears together? Is it common to see carriers or maintenance houses spend more on parts & labor with the goal of minimizing downtime - instead of up to 14 separate trips to maintenance facilities, simply replacing _all_ ground wheel brakes, together, whenever any one wheel's brakes are found to be worn out? Coming from a career an an auto mechanic, I'm guessing the wear is vaguely symmetrical, but can definitely vary between axles or wheels depending on maintenance and environmental factors (and of course, the actions of the "nut loose behind the wheel," or... behind the control column, in this case 😁). ★ for example, with 2 front/steering & 12 total rear wheels, starting from the rear, the wheel "axle" sets would be the 4 rearmost, the 4 rear center, the 4 rear frontmost, and the 2 front wheels P.S.: Sorry for the spammy double-post, but I'm posting this question both here, as a standalone comment, as well as in reply form, below the pinned Mentour Now! comment. Just to maximize the eyeballs.
Individually, as needed. Almost nothing in commercial Aviation is replaced beyond whatever is fastest and cheapest. They might chose to replace sets of components if they're all low and would save overall by one maint. stop but that's it. The strict regulations on inspections (and associated costs) plus the electronic monitoring and visual indicators constantly being checked removed the impetus for wasteful replacements. They just monitor wear items and replace them before they're worn to the manufacturer's minimum spec. Again, the extremely generous safety margins in aviation and inspection intervals allow the flexibility for operators. That said, Helicopters and Military aviation often replace components before approaching worn out spec as the risk of critical failure is much higher for both, real or perceived.
The Moscow times is not a Russian newspaper anymore! They are based out of the Netherlands because they were not allowed to write anything negative about Russia. They would never have been able to publish this in Russia.
I thought this video was click bait that Aeroflot is really flying without brakes. To my knowledge, if an airline were to actually fly without brakes, there will be a lot more runway overruns and more destroyed aircraft which is the opposite of what Russia needs. Then I watched this video and I went, why isn't more people talking about this...
A contentious question. Should spares that allow for non-combatant safety be allowed to be sold to sanctioned countries, or at least the sale of licenses to produce those parts, because I dont see how a 777 with 300 civilians on board crashing and burning has anything to do with politics.
Ok, so one wheel brake is in-op. Now what happens if 2,3, 4 or more also become in-op? Not including logs of problems is just as bad as falsifying them. What can loosely be described as "pattern parts" or non original, they may look the same, they might fit the same, but is their reliability the same? I sincerely hope I'm wrong, but isn't it only a matter of time before there is a tragic incident? Along with some of your case study accidents Captain Petter, I found this quite disturbing, let's hope and pray one of these Russian airliners don't become a subject of yours in a future accident investigation. Happy landings Captain.
I was reminded of a shocking incident involving a British Airways BAC 1-11 I think it was, back in the 80s, where the window blew out and the captain was sucked out of the cockpit. The cabin crew held onto his feet while the co-pilot made an emergency landing at Southampton Airport, UK. Luckily, the Captain, despite being OUTSIDE the aircraft (!) survived. The Windscreen had been replaced the previous day but the retaining screws were fractionally too small, imperceptible to the engineer's eyes.
"pattern parts" as typically made in China for "export" (where legal concerns are moot) are typically made of recycled metals and materials and are often copied without taking into account losses from molds and shinkage due to cooling or curing. You have to basically custom-fit each one and adjust it to make it work. This is somewhat OK in a car fender. Less so with something like a moving part under stress. Often they fail at dramatically lower stress than quoted/are way out of spec. I had a relative who worked for a defense contractor in the 80s and 90s and he said they tried such components but had to replace every rivet, nut, bolt, bearing, and connector as they were out of spec most of the time. Eventually they just paid more for custom-made parts as the time wasted was putting them behind schedule. The overseas companies simply lied or did no quality control. Again, fine for minor things, but for anything that's flying or going into space... not so much.
@@swanvictor887 Thats very true and if the technician had crossed checked his work instead of just relying on his eyesight he would have seen which screws to use but we're not talking about a genuine mistake here, we are talking along the lines of putting a single bullet into a 6 chamber revolver, giving it a good spin, then putting the revolver to your head, squeezing the trigger and hoping you don't blow your head off.
Just a reminder: they still have domestic aircraft designing and manufacturing capabilities. Just like the US do. And nobody else has them. Airbus is not a national manufacturer so there is a place for some concussion...
@@CerberZer0S1gnaL Quite right Russia build there own aircraft namely the Tupolev family. Captain Petter was referring to the Boeing and Airbus aircraft they have. Russia has no approved technical ability to either maintain these aircraft or supply parts to them. Why do you think they are taking parts off grounded aircraft and using them on their airborne craft and they shouldn't be doing that either. I hope I'm wrong, but sooner or later this is going to have a tragic consequence. And for your information Airbus is largely built in Toulouse France.
$1.2 bn of spare parts imported into Russia from third countries like Kyrgyzstan means European & American parts suppliers are still selling to Russia. A disgrace.
The Moscow Times isn't a reliable source on real state of anything in Russia... There aren't any good sources right now. But from purely factual point of view, your explanation is sound and logical. Most likely that's exactly what happens at the moment. We Russians are prone to try and use creative ways of ignoring the problem (comes with a territory when you're poor). Also it's quite possible that some parts would've been reverse-engineered by now. Brake system would be one of easier systems to copy (not easy - easier than most). Expect shady airlines to start operating with some strangely-marked parts. I guess the number of incidents would grow in the following decade, but it wouldn't deter anyone from flying in the country. The sanctions were imposed to try and cripple the russian govt system - that didn't work, yet crises in local branches are unavoidable in the long view. Hooray for our glorious leadership, I guess.
@@olasek7972 Oh, I see. Well, thanks for clarifying. I guess they've said the same about Tu-144. Or nuclear technologies. Or computers. Or firrearms. Or a handful of other things. Blind belief in your own superiority and boastful underestimation of your opponent's capabilities leads to ruin, or so I've heard. Otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion almost two years into the war, with all the international support that's been going on for Ukraine.
@@olegavdovich comrade all the things you mention actually show how backward you are. You can’t even supply toilets and sewage to 60% of your country population. By the way, I live in Poland, we definitely don’t think of ourselves as superior but we look around and see who in the world is superior and who is 50 years behind, in civilization, in everything. If your own Slavic “brothers” make fun of you - that’s not good comrade. 😱
Some aggregates are undergoing maintenance in countries like UAE right now. They are dismounted from planes in Russia, disassembled, sent apart, undergo maintenance by one-day UAE subsidiary , which issues a fake certificate. Then, Aggregates are sent back to Russia intact. It works with all nonessential parts (gauges, locks, pcs, lubricants….) on older generation planes, including b777. All good, planes can be used for domestic flights. Luckily, there are lots of written-off planes produced 2010 and earlier, so spare parts are not an issue.
I think it’s not a matter of choice but a matter of surviving. International regulations made everything to completely cease aviation in Russia. What else should they do? Disclosure of suppliers will necessarily brake the supply chain, and it’s pretty obvious they’d better conceal them. All you need to understand is that Russian aviation is trying to survive, and so far they’re managing it and in the most legitimate way they possibly can.
I think it should be acceptable for manufacturers to give guidance on parts interchange without providing new ones. That way at least the planes that are still flying will be a little bit safer for the sake of the civilians using that mode of transport. But yes, the whole point is to kill the industry, because it can just as easily be used to move personnel and materiel for the RF military. It's a strategic move as much as economic. It turns out the Lusitania really was full of weapons destined for Europe; any means of transport in and out of RF after February 2022 is sus.
Absolutely true! - and who could better create working things right out of nothing than the Russians - sanctions to them will never work, the West is under an illusion //
What else should they do? They could build and maintain their own planes. Or they could leave Ukraine alone. If they really want to be part of global trade community, well there are international rules to follow, including aviation safety rules. If they want to fly planes made in other countries, they might want to follow the manufacturers' recommendations. Junkyard parts can be fine in some cases. If a low mileage car gets rear ended by a big truck, the radiator might be good as new.
@@MONRFin Sorry that you misunderstood me. What I intended to convey was that ruZZia could avoid international sanctions, fly and fix their own planes in their own country, that their government could fix this mess by getting their military to stop invading, torturing, raping, murdering and looting Ukraine. I know that airlines have no authority over pootin. But their government chose WAR. As a result their aviation suffers. Dear leader pootin could choose aviation safety. ruZZian airlines cannot. pootin has authority over aviation. Aviation has no authority over government.
Eventually Aeroflot will be allowed to fly everywhere again. And their planes, with parts of unknown pedigree, will have passengers expecting the standard of safety we’ve all come to expect. How will any of the planes that were maintained without Airbus/Boeing and regulatory standard ever be allowed into regular use again? There would be no way to find out what part went where and what downstream result a bad part or system did to something else.
Are there any legitimate third-party replacement parts for airliners, or do Boeing and Airbus refuse to let that happen? If the latter, it's possible to argue that that restriction could be _creating_ the dangerous illicit parts trade.
It's a interesting argument, seeing that medicine and medical equipment are exempt from the embargo. You can make the case that exempting aircraft maintenance and parts is in the public good. On the other hand... a national aviation industry is not necessary and aircraft parts include military aviation equipment.
@@ptrinchnot to mention the search and rescue missions, forest fire fighting, agriculture, etc. Added: So they really have to keep flying and just accept the fact of reduced safety and possible casualties. That’s the real effect of the embargo. And the military aviation is significantly localised and doesn’t depend so much on these parts anyway.
@@alexv3357 Or NATO could stop propping up a nation in the name of a politically convenient proxy war and we could actually perhaps stop edging toward a open war between the superpowers.
I think the problem is also how these sanctions have been applied. I am thinking USA and EU wanted the whole of Russian air operations to simply be put to a halt. But this is civil aviation, not military. So it is mass punishing 100 million people and forcing them either to not fly at all or face safety issues.
