Sheremetyevo Superjet 100 in flames

[Thruster763]

Originally Posted by bsieker

Not sure about that "far less fuel" on board, because 6,750 kg of fuel did leak, and it was probably sheer luck that it did not ignite. To be precise, the fuel apparently did not leak from the tanks, but from the engine fuel pipe, until it was manually shut off. But almost 7 tonnes is quite a lot.

Look at Section 1.1 of the official report:



It should also be noted that the SuperJet is EASA-certified according to CS.25. As far as I can tell, Ireland-based "CityJet" was (past tense) the only European operator, and there are currently none operating it under an EASA type certificate.

The relevant part of CS.25 is 25.963 (d):


An associated paragraph in the AMC (acceptable means of compliance) has been revoked, however, so I don't know how that is typically tested. At any rate, the regulator must at one point have been satisfied that compliance with 25.963 was achieved.

However, it could be argued based on this accident, that it violated this certification specification, because quite clearly "quantities sufficient to start a serious fire" did leak in an evidently otherwise survivable emergency landing.

Bernd

Indeed fuel did leak from the engine pipework on BA58, this is not covered under 25.963(d) which is for tanks. I've not looked to see what ammendment of CS.25 the SJ-100 was certified to or if there were any CRIs. Normally compliance this type of requirement is shown by analysis rather than test. EASA may not have reviewed the analysis in detail.
These are my own opinions and my not reflect those of my employer (part of my day job includes fuel tank/system certification).