Aeroflot Flight to Istanbul-I. Departure from UUEE.
Flickr, De-mythology, Freedom of Choice, Times&Spaces, Clash, RA-85123 Fan Club Add commentsIn a previous post I mentioned a period of time when we were preparing to the ‘Big Move‘, and how I bought a digital camera to record some moments of ongoing life in that hectic period, the life that we were about to ‘trade off’ soon for something new and exciting, but - challenging and uncertain.
Sure thing, my camera was with me when I was going to fly, - as, for example, on the day of February 27, when I was scheduled for a regular fight from Moscow to Istanbul, Turkey.
It was a typically gray morning, in a row of many similar ones, and it had been snowy the night before, so all departing aircraft were to de-ice after push-back from their gates.
As the ‘ice-men’ crew worked on our plane, we sat on the flight deck, finishing some minor pre-flight routines, and observing from our seats how another ground team was de-icing this Aeroflot’s A-310 in front. Speaking of winter operation, - de-icing and anti-icing, I should note that the whole operational setup for doing this is to the satisfactory safety standards in Sheremetyevo, and it is also generally true with regard to the most places in Russia, - it is a ‘winter country’, after all 
I’m glad I have this video to share with you, - it was taken on February 27, 2004.
It is interesting now to compare the established winter operation patterns and practices in both ‘winter countries’ - Canada and Russia - where I’ve had a chance to work up to the date.
There’s a couple of comments, although of a very general nature, that I would take a liberty to put in here after having accumulated ’some observations and experiences’. Certainly, they are also in just my ‘humble opinion’
- - in Canada they (we) overdo the ground part of the whole deal (like, ‘ridiculous PR-spray’ :);
- - on the contrary, while them in Russia are pretty good and reasonable dealing with snow and ice on the ground, it seems they take way too many precautions about in-flight icing, even on large aircraft equipped with powerful anti-ice systems (like Tu-154, where not only the wing’s leading edge area being heated, but the vertical and horizontal stabilizers as well). While operating in icing conditions, on the most Soviet-built aircraft there’s no distinction of two anti-ice system application ‘technics’ the crew may use at their discretion, as on Boeing-737, for example, - ‘de-icer‘, and ‘anti-icer‘. On the Tu-154 not only the engine anti-ice, but the airframe anti-ice system shall be turned on before entering ‘known icing conditions’. Moreover, they have an annunciation system telling you ‘it’s time to heat things up’
So, in some reasonable time we were done with de-icing, and, finally, we asked ATC for start-up. It is procedurally correct in Russia to do both: one clearance to push, another one for engine start-up. I guess, by the ‘Western standards’ the ATC in Russia would certainly be deemed more ‘authoritarian’. It would be interesting to know opinions from pilots flying to Russia out of the Western Countries.
Oh, wait a minute - in fact, you can ask me :))
October 11th, 2007 at 2:16 am
I like the pictures and video. Very interesting.
October 11th, 2007 at 2:36 am
Thank you, Derin.
In one of the next posts you’ll see the Istanbul pictures. We loved to visit ‘Duty Free’ at the Ataturk’s
October 11th, 2007 at 5:06 am
‘ridiculous PR-spray’
That’s hilarious!!! : )
Excellent post.
I have an idea for one of your future topics. I remember reading somewhere that Tu-154 is a difficult bird to fly. Since you’ve had the wonderful opportunity to fly both Tu-154 and B737, which one do you prefer? How do the flying characteristics compare between the two.
I know it may seem like an ‘apples and oranges’ comparison, but I’m still curious.
October 11th, 2007 at 8:25 am
Evgeni,
Thank you,
- “”wonderful opportunity to fly both Tu-154 and B737, which one do you prefer?”"” -
Oh, it is a question which is not too hard to answer. But leave me please some room for retreat to a safety of ‘polit-correctness’
The type I’m currently flying is 737 ‘NG’, and I bet you know what this ‘NG’ states for. Tu-154 could be put into category ‘OG’, if you follow the same logic for giving those acronyms.
A more closer Tu-154’s ‘peer’ that this aircraft may be compared with is B-727. It is also “OG’, looks pretty much alike, and apparently - in the same flying league.
On the other hand, you can see how far the progress in aircraft manufacturing has gone forward if you compare the Tu154M and 737-800. They both have almost identical seating capacity - around 160 (we’ve got them as 166-seaters in our company, and I used to fly most common Tu-154 modifications with 164 seats).
Just compare planes’ weights and fuel burns. About the latter: when guys I’m now flying with ask me what kind of fuel burn the Tu-154 has, I would go: ‘Oh, you know, - THE SAME’. Naturally, such an answer would ‘rise an eyebrow’, and sound incredulous. And I would just keep going like: ‘Yeah.. why?’ ‘5000 as a minimum reserve for the “NO IFR Alternate” - the same. 5200-5400 after leveling off, 4500-4800 into the third hour of cruise’ - all the same’…
OK, here’s a little test for you: What would you think
about those numbers? :))
October 11th, 2007 at 3:16 pm
With those numbers, I would think that the Tu-154 you flew were always half empty.
If I understand you correctly, you’re saying that the Tu-154(old generation and three engines) has the same fuel flow as the B737NG. Something doesn’t add up…I’m puzzled.
On a tangent, look at IL-86, that thing was so much of a gas guzzler that it had to make a fuel stop on transatlantic flights (at least, westbound). Btw, that’s how I arrived to Canada on a flight to Cuba. HAHA
So, I guess I failed your test. Please explain.
October 11th, 2007 at 3:31 pm
Wait, does it have something to do with the Soloviev D-30 engines. Were they that efficient?
October 11th, 2007 at 5:45 pm
Hey,
and now is the funniest part:
NUMBERS (FIGURES) ARE THE SAME (it’s true), but in case of Tu-154 they are ‘Kg’, ‘Kg/Hr’, when we look at 737-800, they are ‘Lbs’, and ‘Lbs/Hr’.
Isn’t that funny?! :))
October 12th, 2007 at 1:15 am
Aahhh, come on. You took the apples to oranges to an extreme.
That leads me to wonder if the initial low purchase price is worth such inefficiency.
October 12th, 2007 at 1:50 am
hahhaa…you got me really confused with all those numbers. I totally forgot about pounds vs kilograms!!
October 12th, 2007 at 2:11 am
Lol!
This ‘gimmick’ works awesome whenever I have a chance to use it
OK, just a few days ago I flew -800 on the Edmonton-Toronto route (3 hrs 09 min flight at M .78 cruise) , and I made a few in-flight pictures showing fuel burn and all that stuff. I’ll post it soon. And hopefully, one of my best friends in Russia, a Tu-154 captain who often flies our ‘baby’ RA-85123 will come up with his own stuff showing what kind of fuel burn this ‘old new one’ has.
Anyway, guys, thank you for stopping by, it is really enjoyable conversation,
Welcome on board,
Clash
October 12th, 2007 at 3:09 am
Your comment about the funny stuff brought back memories of my flying days and being very relieved that I was not a passenger on the Gimli Glider.
(An Air Canada 767 flight from Toronto to Edmonton runs out of fuel somewhere over Northern Ontario and glides to a landing at Gimli Manitoba. One of the problems that lead to this was a mistake in metric-english conversion of manual fuel readings)
October 12th, 2007 at 4:10 am
Hey, OldDogNewTricks,
Isn’t it an excellent example of a CULTURAL CLASH? Thank you! I heard that they also brought one of the Mars planet exploring probes down to crash because of the error triggered by the similar measurement units confusion (”Newtons’ of thrust vs ‘Pounds’).
Now I’m used to the measurement system existing in aviation here.. Uh, at least, I’m totally protected when I fly the 800s - it doesn’t matter either we use ‘Lbs’ or ‘Kgs’ - only the NUMBER maters
However, we should watch the amount of fuel to be taken: for example, the fuel VOLUME units in the US are ‘Gallons’, whereas in Canada we use ‘Litres’.
But in either case ‘Fuel Quantity’ (Weight) on our Upper Display is shown in Pounds (Lbs).
Another anecdote: when I flew for instrument rating here in Calgary, we had a gentleman from Europe doing his multi-engine rating. He said the hourly rates here to rent a plane are the same, with only the difference that in Ireland they were in UK pounds, and here - in $$ Canadian :))
October 12th, 2007 at 9:30 pm
good post and thread, very interesting. I liked the video
October 13th, 2007 at 7:01 am
Hi, Eric,
Thank you, and I’m also glad to be of use (in case Transport would find my comments on ‘PR-spray’ worthy to take into account next time they come up with a new revision of winter operation guidelines
How are you doing?
P.S. Story continues HERE.