A Russian airliner carrying 170 people was forced to crash-land in a field after a hydraulics failure.
No one was injured in the emergency, which left the Ural Airlines Airbus A320 stranded next to a forest in the Novosibirsk region of Siberia.
Ural said the pilot “selected” the landing site after the jet’s hydraulic systems failed while approaching Omsk.
The incident sparked denials from the airline that it was unable to service its planes due to sanctions on Russia.
I mean screw russia, but be real.
NO one is repairing and using an airplane frame that has had a crash.
We write off cars for less… you definitely write off an airplane frame that’s had a landing like that, and never certify it for re-use.
Cutting it up to transport it out of there is 100% normal for any nation.
My friend, many, many planes that have been crashed have been serviced and returned to service, including airliners.
OK I thought it would still be usable since it’s standing on the wheels seemingly completely unharmed. After all the emergency landing went extremely well, and all passengers are OK.
Commercial aircraft like airbuses are purpose-built for landing on proper sealed runways, if it’s brought down on soft dirt the engines are filled with dust and debris, the landing gear is damaged as it drags across the field, and the airframe itself could have suffered fractures that won’t become apparent until the hull blows out unexpectedly one day.
It is in one piece but there’s hidden damage to all sorts of things
We X-ray these things all the time.
Many many airliners have slid off runways all the time and reenter service.
For decades Boeing sold a 737 Gravel Kit for their planes to minimize FOD ingest on unimproved surfaces.
http://www.b737.org.uk/unpavedstripkit.htm
The gear didn’t collapse. The damage is probably fairly minimal, including the engines which were probably at idle, and they most likely didn’t use or need thrust reversers.
Not saying it’s a certainty if this happened in the US or EU that it would fly again, but it isn’t impossible.
I will say it’s unlikely because getting it out of a field in one piece is no small task - and probably more expensive than the plane is worth relative to the parts value, but not because of any inherent damage. Just because the engines are the most valuable thing on a plane and much easier to take those off the plane than move the airframe without damaging it more.
OK I see, still a bit hilarious, that while they may be short of planes, they lose them like this.
This is a great example of “it’s expensive to be poor”
On rough ground that would put a lot of stress in the landing system and likely the rest of the plane. Small cracks in things can lead to catastrophic failure later on even if everything looks fine now. Would you want to take a chance on that?
Not to mention they have to get it out of the field. That alone is probably not worth the effort to save a possibly compromised frame.
I would not. But are you sure about Russia? And even if they just break up the plane for parts, would it really be safe to fly a plane that relies on parts salvaged from this one?
OK I see, still a bit hilarious, that while they may be short of planes, they lose them like this.
Airliners cost around $100 million or more though. If they can, they’re going to be repaired and put back in the service.