PDA

View Full Version : Sheremetyevo Superjet 100 in flames


Pages : [1] 2

Frequent_Flyer
5th May 2019, 16:15
https://www.vesti.ru/doc.html?id=3144257

Link to Russian news: In Sheremetyevo an Aeroflot Superjet 100 crash landed on second landing attempt. Huge fire broke out.
It was scheduled to fly to Murmansk and requested to return to Moscow due to an engine fire. SU1492 (https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/su1492)
https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/ra-89098#20671283

gearlever
5th May 2019, 16:21
video superjet 100 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0hCnu26Qn4&feature=youtu.be&t=10)

fly4beer
5th May 2019, 16:24
/dimsmirnov175/status/1125068956644126720

not allowed to post URL's so add twitter.com

His dudeness
5th May 2019, 16:36
Lets hope that everyone got out okay.

Longtimer
5th May 2019, 16:40
From the BBC https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-48171392
A Russian passenger plane has made an emergency landing at Moscow airport after a fire broke out mid-flight, state media report.

Videos on social media show passengers using emergency exit slides to escape the Aeroflot aircraft.

Other footage shows the plane landing while on fire and black smoke billowing from it on the tarmac.
Initial reports on Russian media suggest all 78 passengers on-board were evacuated.
It remains unclear how many people have been injured in the large blaze. The aircraft is a reportedly a Sukhoi Superjet-100 that had been bound for the city of Murmansk.

DDDriver
5th May 2019, 16:42
BBC reporting all safe ďaccording to Russian MediaĒ.

Fingers crossed. From videos, theyíre lucky if so.

andrasz
5th May 2019, 16:45
Video of evacuation:
https://twitter.com/WildWildMoscow/status/1125067100668739595/video/1

Conflicting reports, according to TASS several injured but all got out, Novosti 'likely casualties', Interfax reports 10 perished.

Longtimer
5th May 2019, 16:47
FIREBALLFive hurt as passenger plane is engulfed in flames during emergency landing in MoscowDramatic footage shows the jet engulfed in flames as it came down on the runway https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9008902/russia-plane-emergency-landing-airport/BreakingBy Phoebe Cooke5th May 2019, 5:29 pmUpdated: 5th May 2019, 5:44 pmDRAMATIC footage shows a passenger jet engulfed in flames as it made an emergency landing at Moscow airport today.

Five people were hurt after a fire on board led to the crash landing, Russia's Interfax news agency reported, citing a source.Flames were seen flaring from the rear of the Russian-built aircraft with a reported 78 on board

Russian state TV showed footage of the plane with black smoke rising above its tail.

Video posted on social media showed much of the plane engulfed by flame as it sped down the runway.
Officials have said all 78 passengers were evacuated.
The Russian Aeroflot Sukhoi Superjet plane was forced to make the landing at Sheremetyevo airport today.
video of aircraft landing on fire. https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9008902/russia-plane-emergency-landing-airport/

Icanseeclearly
5th May 2019, 16:51
Fingers crossed all are ok.

i will be the first to say it, emergency landing, big fire yet people still taking their hand baggage with them (including if I’m nit mistaken a couple of larger “wheelie bags”

i know as professionals we bang on about this all th time but there is a possibility here of injuries or worse because of it.

Deep and fast
5th May 2019, 16:54
Going by the size of the fire, the crew did a good job getting it quickly back to the airport and pax off!

DDDriver
5th May 2019, 16:55
Fingers crossed all are ok.

i will be the first to say it, emergency landing, big fire yet people still taking their hand baggage with them (including if Iím nit mistaken a couple of larger ďwheelie bagsĒ

i know as professionals we bang on about this all th time but there is a possibility here of injuries or worse because of it.

Fortunately Iíve never been in this situation. I think itís hard to judge people based on these events otherwise - very much operating on adrenaline and instincts, grabbing bag could be very much a subconscious decision. Same as people in burning buildings who instinctively go for the way they came in, rather than the nearest exit.

Only way to stop it would be to ban cabin bags.

Still, if theyíve got out of that itís a significant achievement by the crew.

EDIT - yes, of course I agree all bags should be left behind. Just for clarity!

liider
5th May 2019, 16:59
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIxJfWKEJYA

derjodel
5th May 2019, 17:06
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIxJfWKEJYA

No firefighters/rescue, like at all? Or am I blind?

Looks bad for the pax in the rear :eek:. Plane was half in flames before they opened the exits!

DDDriver
5th May 2019, 17:12
No firefighters/rescue, like at all? Or am I blind?

Looks bad for the pax in the rear :eek:. Plane was half in flames before they opened the exits!

Some video angles show appliances and water jets.

Still mixed reports re casualties. Would be very (pleasantly) surprised if everyone makes it out - the rear seems well alight as it lands and comes to a stop. By the time the slides deploy half the plane is engulfed on the outside at least.

guadaMB
5th May 2019, 17:12
Yeps...
Looks like firefighters were...not where they had to be considering the plane TURNED BACK and flames could be seen before/when TAKING LAND.

Deep and fast
5th May 2019, 17:17
Looking like 12 plus 1 crew. Sad day again. Lucky to make it back to the airport at all to be honest.

andrasz
5th May 2019, 17:19
UNCONFIRMED discussion on Russian social media sites suggest linghtning strike and total electric failure (including loss of communications) on climbout, bounced twice on landing, on third touchdown MLG failed and fire broke out. 'Sources' at airport now speak of 12 casualties in rear rows.

Appears to be a rather poor performance from the side of ARFF, no fire trucks visible for at least 90 seconds following door opening, all this with a known emergency (even if there was no communications with the aircaft, twr should have raised the alarm on seeing the aircraft returning).

CargoOne
5th May 2019, 17:21
Fingers crossed all are ok.

i will be the first to say it, emergency landing, big fire yet people still taking their hand baggage with them (including if Iím nit mistaken a couple of larger ďwheelie bagsĒ

i know as professionals we bang on about this all th time but there is a possibility here of injuries or worse because of it.

Russian citizens cannot afford loosing their passport - it would take good half a year to make the new one, and you are semi-paralysed during that time as a citizen, business owner, employee, property owner, pensioner etc. On the other side they all perfectly know there will be no compensation for damages on domestic flight accident. So dont blame people they want their stuff out with them...

atakacs
5th May 2019, 17:24
Well it would be extremely surprising that everyone got out of this one (but obviously hope so).
Unclear about what was on fire? I'd hope it wasn't a massive cabin fire so the only other likely explanation would be engine?

DDDriver
5th May 2019, 17:25
Russian citizens cannot afford loosing their passport - it would take good half a year to make the new one, and you are semi-paralysed during that time as a citizen, business owner, employee, property owner, pensioner etc. On the other side they all perfectly know there will be no compensation for damages on domestic flight accident. So dont blame people they want their stuff out with them...

Whenever I fly as pax I always keep wallet, phone, and passport in my pockets for this reason. Not that it would take so long, but itís one less bit of hassle.

derjodel
5th May 2019, 17:28
Well it would be extremely surprising that everyone got out of this one (but obviously hope so).
Unclear about what was on fire? I'd hope it wasn't a massive cabin fire so the only other likely explanation would be engine?

Seems to me like wing tanks on both sides are burning.

CargoOne
5th May 2019, 17:31
Whenever I fly as pax I always keep wallet, phone, and passport in my pockets for this reason. Not that it would take so long, but itís one less bit of hassle.

As a general guess you are more educated on air travel compared to an average pax. But it doesnt work like that on longhaul, and SU takes your jacket and coat out in business class on shorthaul too

cats_five
5th May 2019, 17:33
<snip>
EDIT - yes, of course I agree all bags should be left behind. Just for clarity!

Even bags with medication in? I've got asthma, a faint whiff of the fumes from a car fire had me wheezing. I would take my handbag with blue inhaler & spacer.

derjodel
5th May 2019, 17:36
Even bags with medication in? I've got asthma, a faint whiff of the fumes from a car fire had me wheezing. I would take my handbag with blue inhaler & spacer.

I would almost expect first responders to have some inhalers available you know...

DDDriver
5th May 2019, 17:37
As a general guess you are more educated on air travel compared to an average pax. But it doesnt work like that on longhaul, and SU takes your jacket and coat out in business class on shorthaul too

True enough. I think I'd always make sure they were within arm's reach though to grab and pocket them if at all possible. As I say above, fortunately never had to try it out in real life.

I don't think there's very much can be done to prevent the bag issue. Possibly educating people to pocket these items, but other than banning cabin bags I'm not certain there's any other solution.

Anyhow, it remains to be seen what the final outcome here is going to be. Clearly many escaped, so praise to the crew for that. Deeply sad if any casualties confirmed, which seems likely.

Frequent_Flyer
5th May 2019, 17:37
You can see the burning plane landing here. It makes me cry just to see it. Vesti reports that everyone was able to evacuate.
https://www.vesti.ru/doc.html?id=3144267#

Edited: Now 13 confirmed dead by medics. :{

hoss183
5th May 2019, 17:37
It was squwaking 7700 for a while and did one circuit before landing, one would think the ARFF would have had plenty of time to get in place.....
https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/su1492#20671283

captplaystation
5th May 2019, 17:47
Sorry to be cynical, but, SSS is Sukhoi Super Jet, or, Soviet Sh1t Jet . . . . . . . .

Certification crashes, Jurassic engine that sounds like a 732, wing spar problems, no spares or support . . . ask City Jet . . . Brussels Airlines , or Adria.

Of course, this or worse can happen to a Boeing or Airbus, but. . . . . . . . . wouldn't strap into one unless it was the last flight outta a war zone, sorry.

paperHanger
5th May 2019, 17:52
Odd that they flew a hold ...

andrasz
5th May 2019, 17:56
Odd that they flew a hold ...
If reports of a total electrical failure correct, nothing odd about it. They probably needed more time for checklists / configure for landing with key systems out.

Neufunk
5th May 2019, 17:59
In the evacuation video, you can see some bodies being thrown on the slides, just after the FAs. Grim.

MPN11
5th May 2019, 18:04
Whenever I fly as pax I always keep wallet, phone, and passport in my pockets for this reason. Not that it would take so long, but itís one less bit of hassle.
One reason we (leisure pax) now both travel in cargo trousers. Plenty of space for critical items.

CodyBlade
5th May 2019, 18:06
2 loss of SJ100 after Indonesia CFIT?

gearlever
5th May 2019, 18:07
"I dont think they had much choice on that, being that the landing gear had departed"

Looked to me as if the gear was intact until the turn, but hey.

The landing was with nose high... looks like no MLG to me.

paperHanger
5th May 2019, 18:11
If reports of a total electrical failure correct, nothing odd about it. They probably needed more time for checklists / configure for landing with key systems out.

Shrug ... with flames coming out of the back, time to get it down is all that counts really, we train for a Vne descent, or full flaps and Vso depending on distance to run. Given that it appears the gear fell off, any time spent checking gear down was wasted ... still, I wasn't there, looks like they did a decent job.

andrasz
5th May 2019, 18:12
The landing was with nose high... looks like no MLG to me.
Shrug ... with flames coming out of the back...
IF rumors correct, there was NO in-flight fire, only electric failure and loss of comms due to a lightning strike. MLG collapsed on third touchdown after two bounces, fire broke out afterwards. Available video only shows the aircraft already on fire, sliding to a halt.

gearlever
5th May 2019, 18:14
Shrug ... with flames coming out of the back, time to get it down is all that counts really, we train for a Vne descent, or full flaps and Vso depending on distance to run. Given that it appears the gear fell off, any time spent checking gear down was wasted ... still, I wasn't there, looks like they did a decent job.

"flames coming out of the back" inflight?

derjodel
5th May 2019, 18:16
"I dont think they had much choice on that, being that the landing gear had departed"

Looked to me as if the gear was intact until the turn, but hey.

I'm pretty sure the dark spot is engine and they are sliding on the engines. Seems exactly like the one in Yakutsk where landing gears collapsed.
https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/221x125/superjet_455ec5aceca16a758b8146eac951566236451622.png
https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/930x522/yakutia_airlines_sukhoi_superjet_100_crash_at_yakutsk_airpor t_2_e0327e974e46b4761a10a4ee07ac7e6ce19a80a6.jpg

Super VC-10
5th May 2019, 18:22
2 loss of SJ100 after Indonesia CFIT?

Three losses. The Yakutia accident on 10 October 2018 was a hull loss too.

San Diego kid
5th May 2019, 18:24
Wow, that was painfull to watch how long firefighters needed to arrive.

gearlever
5th May 2019, 18:29
Wow, that was painfull to watch how long firefighters needed to arrive.

Yep.
They had already declared emergency.....

andrasz
5th May 2019, 18:49
RT now reporting 13 fatalities confirmed. The wording implies that the toll could rise.

jantar99
5th May 2019, 18:53
IF rumors correct, there was NO in-flight fire, only electric failure and loss of comms due to a lightning strike. MLG collapsed on third touchdown after two bounces, fire broke out afterwards. Available video only shows the aircraft already on fire, sliding to a halt.

I second this. Read similar rumors. Besides, Aeroflot stated that the fire started after touchdown.

NutLoose
5th May 2019, 19:00
Reports also suggest it did not succeed in its first emergency landing attempt.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-48171392


https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/600x338/1553276302_0_26_720_431_600x0_80_0_0_da2aa89875a0887e6cb8dfd 6f96b4a87_48a2cea1b55348ed8399ecdc7cc966acd5eb5b7b.jpg

from https://ria.ru/20190505/1553277937.html

Anvaldra
5th May 2019, 19:01
Rumors they had “direct law”, so switched on 7700. Then the question to crash teams

paperHanger
5th May 2019, 19:02
I second this. Read similar rumors. Besides, Aeroflot stated that the fire started after touchdown.

Fair enough, you would have thought the fire crews would have been chasing it down the tarmac though? I've had that before now, for far less important events, including an icident at Coventry that is probably best forgotten ...

paperHanger
5th May 2019, 19:04
Reports also suggest it did not succeed in its first emergency landing attempt.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-48171392


I would ignore that, that will be some half-assed journalist studying the FR24 track and mistaking the hold for a missed approach (that BBC article mentions FR24, so thye probably looked) .. they are not very bright.

pattern_is_full
5th May 2019, 19:05
Did that Yakutia gear collapse produce a fuel leak? I see moisture and possible foam on the tarmac.

derjodel
5th May 2019, 19:08
Did that Yakutia gear collapse produce a fuel leak? I see moisture and possible foam on the tarmac.

It did!

"The aircraft failed to stop on the remaining runway and overran onto the area that was under reconstruction, stopping after 250 meters. This caused damage to the forward fuselage, separation of both main landing gear bogies and a fuel tank leak."

https://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20181010-0

andrasz
5th May 2019, 19:11
...you would have thought the fire crews would have been chasing it down the tarmac though?
Absolutely. There is zero justification for their 90+ second absence.

gearlever
5th May 2019, 19:16
Odd that they flew a hold ...

I have watched the FR data again and it looks to me they were too high/fast for the first approach.

KelvinD
5th May 2019, 19:41
Re the 7700 squawk; the replay I just watched showed they were actually squawking 7600.

freshgasflow
5th May 2019, 19:46
I am not an aviation professional so grateful if someone could explain things to me:
If the theory of lightning strike are true, how does it lead to electrical failure ? I thought that an aircraft aluminium or metal mesh composite effectively created an Faraday cage ?
If there were local electrical transients, would this only trip circuit breakers. which presumably could be reset quickly ?
Thank you.

Airclues
5th May 2019, 19:46
An airport official said that ‘many passengers delayed emergency evacuation - because against all instructions - they were picking up hand luggage from overhead compartments.’

When is someone going to be prosecuted for this?

gearlever
5th May 2019, 19:51
I am not an aviation professional so grateful if someone could explain things to me:
If the theory of lightning strike are true, how does it lead to electrical failure ? I thought that an aircraft aluminium or metal mesh composite effectively created an Faraday cage ?
If there were local electrical transients, would this only trip circuit breakers. which presumably could be reset quickly ?
Thank you.

Not circuit breakers, but FMC failures, generator failures,spurious warnings etc. etc.

But 99% are resettable. Okay 98%:O

liider
5th May 2019, 19:57
Hard landing video, finally https://twitter.com/KFM936/status/1125124009597788160

tlott
5th May 2019, 20:01
Video from onbaord during the landing.

twitter/Ozkok/status/1125122006674964480 (https://www.pprune.org/twitter/Ozkok/status/1125122006674964480)

A Squared
5th May 2019, 20:09
I am not an aviation professional so grateful if someone could explain things to me:
If the theory of lightning strike are true, how does it lead to electrical failure ? I thought that an aircraft aluminium or metal mesh composite effectively created an Faraday cage ?
If there were local electrical transients, would this only trip circuit breakers. which presumably could be reset quickly ?
Thank you.

Well, it's not that simple. Lightning generates very large currents. I don't know anything about the specific's of the Sukhoi electrical system, but many aircraft electrical systems are single wire, chassis ground systems like an automobile. In those, lightning generating a large current in the airframe, is the same as the lightning generating a large current within the electrical system ... with the resulting possibility of overcurrent damage to critical components. Even in electrical systems whcih do not use the airframe as a conductor, the fact that you have large current transients in the airframe, adjacent the wiring, can lead to burned insulation, induced voltage spikes within the conductors, and other effects that may result in damage to critical components. As far as breakers are concerned, they are designed to protect from excessive current flowing through the normal path of the electrical circuit. A lightning strike may not trip them, it may be causing damage on components in a way that there is no excessive current flowing through the wiring at the breaker panel.

alserire
5th May 2019, 20:11
When is someone going to be prosecuted for this?

When it's made a criminal offence.

Then try and prosecute someone for it and see how it goes going after people who behave irrationally in an emergency.

We all know what we'd do when watching it on YouTube. Whole different ball game in the middle of it.

jugofpropwash
5th May 2019, 20:37
Given that there was a "bounce" that was apparently hard enough to start a substantial fuel leak, I wonder if overhead bins opened and spilled luggage? If bags fell and were blocking the aisle, I think there would be a strong temptation to grab and pitch out the open doorway simply to get them out of the way. (Although that doesn't explain the people calmly rolling their bags away...)

Anvaldra
5th May 2019, 20:39
New figures - 41 fatalities

A Squared
5th May 2019, 20:42
New figures - 41 fatalities

Ugh. Not good news, but not surprised. When I first saw the video and the reports of all surviving, I thought ... seems unlikely. No satisfaction in seeing that my initial reaction is correct.

tdracer
5th May 2019, 20:43
I am not an aviation professional so grateful if someone could explain things to me:
If the theory of lightning strike are true, how does it lead to electrical failure ? I thought that an aircraft aluminium or metal mesh composite effectively created an Faraday cage ?
If there were local electrical transients, would this only trip circuit breakers. which presumably could be reset quickly ?
Thank you.

Aluminum does a good job of conducting the lightning current, however there can be significant 'induced' current on internal wiring (similar to the way a transformer works - current through the external windings induce a current to the internal windings). However, this should be designed for per 25.1316:

ß25.1316 Electrical and electronic system lightning protection.

(a) Each electrical and electronic system that performs a function, for which failure would prevent the continued safe flight and landing of the airplane, must be designed and installed so that—(1) The function is not adversely affected during and after the time the airplane is exposed to lightning; and(2) The system automatically recovers normal operation of that function in a timely manner after the airplane is exposed to lightning.(b) Each electrical and electronic system that performs a function, for which failure would reduce the capability of the airplane or the ability of the flightcrew to respond to an adverse operating condition, must be designed and installed so that the function recovers normal operation in a timely manner after the airplane is exposed to lightning.
(note, the quote is the FAR, however the regulation has been harmonized so the EASA CS version should be identical - and to export the Superjet they'd have to show compliance with the FAR/CS)
There is a lengthy Advisory Circular that provides specifics on how to show compliance.
In short, critical systems can not be significantly affected by the lightning transient, essential systems can be affected but must self recover (with no resetting of circuit breakers). The allowable recovery time depends on the system, but 10 seconds was a good rule of thumb.

So the short answer is that a lightning strike should NOT have resulted in widespread system failures.

andrasz
5th May 2019, 20:58
...a lightning strike should NOT have resulted in widespread system failures.

At the moment we do not really know if it was a lingthning strike, it is only speculation (though not unsubstantiated). From what is definitely known, aircraft first squawked 7600 about 7 minutes into the climbout, stopped the climb and returned to land, changing to 7700 about 6 minutes prior to touchdown. What happened next is on video... Closeup photos clearly show slats/flaps deployed (to about 25), aircraft was configured for a normal landing.

Hard to make any further judgment until we know what controlability issues the crew had to tackle. It could be a badly blotched landing with a perfectly controllable airplane, or an outstanding feat of airmanship in face of adverse circumstances.

BristolScout
5th May 2019, 21:38
Looking at the images, hopefully the flight deck crew have survived which will help the investigation.

testpanel
5th May 2019, 21:46
Not as good as first thought..... (https://www.rt.com/news/458449-superjet-crash-landing-survived/)

SanchesS80
5th May 2019, 21:48
Looking at the images, hopefully the flight deck crew have survived which will help the investigation.
Both Captain and FO are fine for sure (local media says they are being questioning by authorities now)

jantar99
5th May 2019, 21:54
Cabin video after touchdown. Different from tlott's one.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYizjxuUiEM

JohnnyRocket
5th May 2019, 21:55
Terrifying footage from inside the cabin here - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KwTpGLKPFXI&feature=youtu.be (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KwTpGLKPFXI&amp;feature=youtu.be)

andrasz
5th May 2019, 21:57
Full uncut video of the first 5 minutes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5OnYm5uIE8

00:20 Aircraft comes to a stop
00:30 First slide deploys
01:51 First Fire truck arrives
02:13 Last evacuation on slide
02:50 RH cockpit crew evacuates using rope
03:30 Crew member climbs back to plane on slide
03:47 Smaller and larger dark objects slide down slide
03:55 Crew member slides down slide

yanrair
5th May 2019, 22:19
I am not an aviation professional so grateful if someone could explain things to me:
If the theory of lightning strike are true, how does it lead to electrical failure ? I thought that an aircraft aluminium or metal mesh composite effectively created an Faraday cage ?
If there were local electrical transients, would this only trip circuit breakers. which presumably could be reset quickly ?
Thank you.
lightning strikes are usually harmless on properly constructed jets. Iíve had many over 35 years. Still here!

Traffic_Is_Er_Was
5th May 2019, 22:32
It appears that after that last crew member slides back down at 03:55, there is still someone in the doorway who goes back inside. I don't see them come out, unless they use the slide on the other side. On watching again, it looks like that last crew member then runs around to check the slide on the other side, but no luck.

paperHanger
5th May 2019, 22:51
From the cabin passenger video, there is an alert signal on the cabin intercom, so it would appear not *all* the electrical circuits are dead.

paperHanger
5th May 2019, 22:55
Both Captain and FO are fine for sure (local media says they are being questioning by authorities now)

It is Russia, someone has to pay for the bad publicity, they either have heroes, or someone goes to jail ... there seems to be no middle ground.

chafra
5th May 2019, 23:02
This crash is too similar to the last one in 2018 with MLG collapse. And the first AC loss due to CFIT also had electrical failure, hadn't it? It's time for a full investigation of SSJ accidents. This AC is a menace to society. Poor families that lost their members. Rest in peace.

​​​​

jack11111
5th May 2019, 23:51
I don't see flames until second bounce. Do others here agree?

Decision_Height
6th May 2019, 00:00
If its in direct law then likely a handful, and we don't know exactly what systems that were down or why, so lets not rush to judgement on flying skills or otherwise.

What is truly sad is the mis-reporting, the video evidence clearly shows it wasn't on-fire on approach, and its a consequence of the bounce causing a puncture/rupture of the wing fuel tanks.

Reports here now that 41 fatalities.. sad indeed. :(

What-ho Squiffy!
6th May 2019, 00:15
Much is up for debate wrt this accident. All except for the veritable AGE it took for ARFFS to get onsite.

2unlimited
6th May 2019, 00:19
When I see the people running with their large luggage, it makes me furious. How many more could have been saved if it wasn't for some selfish morons, we will never know.

Apparently they had lost COMs, so I am guessing the reasons the fire services was so slow was that there had not been any communication from the aircraft as they came in for landing.

Does anybody know what the fire service rescue reaction time should be at an airport like this? Or what level of RFFS it is at this airport?
Someone should have spotted that burning aircraft on approach and raised some alarms you would have thought.

lomapaseo
6th May 2019, 00:41
The landing may have been hard enough to break off the gear and the dislodged gear which rupture the fuel tanks. The videos so far posted show only the latter part of the landing slide out.

The first issue is why the hard landing and then to work the before and afters from that.

mnttech
6th May 2019, 00:47
Hard landing video, finally https://twitter.com/KFM936/status/1125124009597788160
Every thing I have tried to do that link fails.
It show a "landing", a big bounce, a second "landing" maybe a small bounce, engine fire on the ground impact, and then a lot of smoek.
It appears that the right engine kept running?
Maybe the right slide deflated slightly?

172driver
6th May 2019, 01:07
Apparently the crew squawked 7500 (comm fail) followed by 7700 (emergency)... and from the video earlier the aircraft was not on fire until it "bounced" on the landing probably compromising fuel cells with the failed MLG...

lost comms is 7600. If they did indeed squawk 7500 then probably a mistake.

Geosync
6th May 2019, 01:09
Being in aviation claims I’ve seen my share of lightening strikes on all types of jets(albeit no Russian iron), to the point where they are the most benign claims I see. Not one of those aircraft crashed or so much declared an emergency. It makes me wonder about the design of the Superjet.

f1yhigh
6th May 2019, 01:16
What do you think of airliners introducing an automatic cabin baggage lock in emergency situations? That would stop people from trying to grab luggage in the cabin in emergency situations.

tdracer
6th May 2019, 01:43
The Sukhoi Superjet has been in service for several years, so I am quite certain it has survived its share of lightning strikes without serious incident.

So many factors, and so much speculation...but hey, that is what this forum is all about, although let us keep it professional.

Lightning strikes are not all created equal. The magnitude of the strike as well as the location (attach point and where it departs the airframe) make a big difference. IF this was lightning related...

jugofpropwash
6th May 2019, 01:46
I don't see flames until second bounce. Do others here agree?

If the first bounce caused a leak, perhaps when they bounced the second time, they scraped the runway and sparks caught the leak on fire?

jugofpropwash
6th May 2019, 01:53
By the way, thanks for telling the entire non-flying terrorist community what '7500' means.
Any other security codes you wish to share globally?

If a terrorist is too stupid to spend 10 seconds on Google, I'm sure he's not smart enough to find Pprune.

Alientali
6th May 2019, 01:57
Not on fire before the landing? How do you know? Just because flames were not visible when the aircraft was on approach doesn't mean there wasn't smoke in the cockpit.

By way, thanks for telling the entire non-flying terrorist community what '7500' means.
Any other security codes you wish to share globally?

None of the points below prove absence of fire before landing; however, in conjunction they give a high probability of that absence.

1. No fire on board reported by crew (COMs seem to have been intermittent, not dead).
2. Timing and character of fire is consistent with a likely scenario of a landing with that much fuel.
3. PAX video made during/shortly after landing suggests no smoke in cockpit prior to conflagration on the outside.

As to the codes - they are, and have been for a long time, so readily and widely available that no one would bother with looking for them on a message board.

Iron Bar
6th May 2019, 02:38
Boeing and Airbus main wheels are designed to detach and not penetrate fuel tanks, if overloaded or stressed beyond limits.

Do Sukhoi have similar design??

Capn Bloggs
6th May 2019, 02:47
Someone should have spotted that burning aircraft on approach and raised some alarms you would have thought.
One of those videos clearly shows it was NOT on fire prior to touchdown. It bounced/skipped, then came down hard the second time (just like the MD11 in Japan), I surmise the main gear collapsed, ruptured a tank and fuel fire ensued, as there is a flash of flame almost immediately after the second touchdown followed by a large puff of smoke/fuel then it ignited.

Pilot DAR
6th May 2019, 03:03
It bounced/skipped, then came down hard the second time

I opine (with no more information than the video itself) that prior to the "first" ground contact seen in the video, the aircraft had already touched down once, so "one" then "two" may really have been "two" then "three". Each ground contact was more violent than the preceding one. This has been seen before as an approach flown too fast, the pilot trying to force the plane onto the runway at too fast a speed (perhaps in this case, out of a sense of urgency for being on the ground, rather than in flight with another emergency), and a porpoised landing to destruction as the result. It does not appear that the nose was being held up to slow the plane into a flare.

spacesage
6th May 2019, 03:09
IMHO

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilot-induced_oscillation

mickjoebill
6th May 2019, 03:12
In answer to my earlier question, this 360 walk thought reveals flight crew door opens outwards into main cabin.

Debate on if overwing exits should have been deployed is moot as there are no over wing exits on the model photographed.

https://www.superjetinternational.com/products/sukhoi-superjet100/cabin/

It does look like an engine was running during the evacuation.

mjb

e32lover
6th May 2019, 03:28
I agree with the other poster. Baggage compartments should be locked during take off, landing and during emergencies. We will never know how many lives this would have saved in various accidents including this one.

A Squared
6th May 2019, 03:33
If a terrorist is too stupid to spend 10 seconds on Google, I'm sure he's not smart enough to find Pprune.

Exactly, the transponder codes have been published openly without any restriction for at least 34 years by my direct personal observation (actually longer, that's just how long I personally have been seeing it in print) The idea that was some security secret is laughable.

Bushbuck
6th May 2019, 03:43
By any measure that landing(s) was a shocker. If both engines were performing adequately well, then there is no excuse for such a landing - lightning strike - or not. It appears that the landing contributed to the start of the fire.

Lord Farringdon
6th May 2019, 03:51
I am amazed at that guy who took the video of the crash sequence inside the aircraft. Did he know how much danger he was in? Even after that last, gear collapsing touch down which must have been bone shattering and then with all the flames and noise that followed? Yet his video was amazingly calm and steady like he was in a movie or a computer game where no one really gets hurt perhaps? A sort of virtual/real reality. Maybe he just wanted some more You Tube likes? Mind bending.

7574ever
6th May 2019, 03:55
By any measure that landing(s) was a shocker. If both engines were performing adequately well, then there is no excuse for such a landing - lightning strike - or not.

Perhaps flight control issues? Itís easy to say that when you havenít had to confront the situation yourself...

Super VC-10
6th May 2019, 04:10
Photograph of the aircraft involved, seen in happier times.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Aeroflot,_RA-89098,_Sukhoi_Superjet_100-95B_(37008931593)_(2).jpg

A Squared
6th May 2019, 04:15
Perhaps flight control issues? It’s easy to say that when you haven’t had to confront the situation yourself...




This.

A couple of videos and some few sketchy facts are not quite enough to claim that the flight crew performed poorly. Yeah, the landing looks awful, but I have no idea what challenges they were wrestling with. One could just as easily view the video of Al Haynes' landing in Sioux City with no additional information and conclude that he really screwed that one up, when in fact, he did a pretty damn good job considering the hand he was dealt.

What-ho Squiffy!
6th May 2019, 04:24
Yeah, it's a big secret:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transponder_(aeronautics)

Pearly White
6th May 2019, 04:32
I am amazed at that guy who took the video of the crash sequence inside the aircraft. Did he know how much danger he was in? Even after that last, gear collapsing touch down which must have been bone shattering and then with all the flames and noise that followed? Yet his video was amazingly calm and steady like he was in a movie or a computer game where no one really gets hurt perhaps? A sort of virtual/real reality. Maybe he just wanted some more You Tube likes? Mind bending.
Maybe he was so jammed in by other passengers he couldn't move, and thought even if he didn't get out, his video might, would if he was live streaming? If he was only lingering to get a few more likes that seems pretty daft, if not mind-bending.

pattern_is_full
6th May 2019, 04:33
I agree right engine runs for about a minute after the aircraft comes to a stop, fanning the flames. Apparently did not deter pax from evacuating (good thing). I have no idea if that was simply how long it took the crew to "unstartle" and run the shut-down list, or if the previous impact and/or hypothetical lightning strike had damaged engine controls (remember "stuck" #1 engine on the Singapore/Qantas A380?) It may simply have stopped only once the fuel had leaked out and burned on the ground.

Salute to whoever it was that ran back into the burning plane. I suspect it was the FO getting the CAPT out of the cockpit and down the slide head-first (dark "objects" on slide). Zero further comment on crew until we know a lot more about what degraded controls they may have been fighting.

Agree the fire response was slowish - but we don't know what they were told to expect and how they were deployed. Remember there were comm problems with the aircraft.

Whatever else goes on with the SSJ-100, it looks like it may have a "Ford Pinto problem." Tendency to collapse gear in a way that ruptures fuel tanks.

etrang
6th May 2019, 04:43
I agree with the other poster. Baggage compartments should be locked during take off, landing and during emergencies. We will never know how many lives this would have saved in various accidents including this one.

Locked baggage compartments would make the situation worse as people struggled to try and open them. If airlines wanted to prevent this they could simply ban cabin luggage.

Traffic_Is_Er_Was
6th May 2019, 05:08
Does anybody know what the fire service rescue reaction time should be at an airport like this
I think ICAO is 3 minutes to any point of an operational RWY (2 minutes recommended) and 3 minutes to any other part of the movement area. If they were only alerted when the aircraft actually crashed, it appears they got there within the standard. 2 minutes can be a long time.

RickNRoll
6th May 2019, 05:11
Full uncut video of the first 5 minutes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5OnYm5uIE8

00:20 Aircraft comes to a stop
00:30 First slide deploys
01:51 First Fire truck arrives
02:13 Last evacuation on slide
02:50 RH cockpit crew evacuates using rope
03:30 Crew member climbs back to plane on slide
03:47 Smaller and larger dark objects slide down slide
03:55 Crew member slides down slide

Somone actually has a video in landscape mode so they letterbox it into portrait mode.

mickjoebill
6th May 2019, 05:26
Locked baggage compartments would make the situation worse as people struggled to try and open them. If airlines wanted to prevent this they could simply ban cabin luggage.

Part of the check in procedure and safety briefing would be to remind passengers that baggage lockers would be locked in an emergency.
"doors and bins locked for landing"
This would take a few decades to become ubiquitous across a carrier's fleet.
A passenger fumbling with the overhead locker is less of an obstruction than one tripping down the isle with a wheelie.

Mjb

MungoP
6th May 2019, 05:43
While nothing can be ruled out at this stage I would say that if handling difficulties were the cause of the terrible landing attempt then they must have occurred very late in the approach. A pilot experiencing handling problems doesn't simply squawk 7600 indicating a radio failure.

ThreeThreeMike
6th May 2019, 05:47
Fair enough, you would have thought the fire crews would have been chasing it down the tarmac though? I've had that before now, for far less important events, including an icident at Coventry that is probably best forgotten ...

Now that video of the landing has surfaced, it's apparent the speed of the aircraft and the multiple bounces resulted in it quickly traveling hundreds of meters further than ARFF expected, and this resulted in the delayed arrival at the crash scene.

mangere1957
6th May 2019, 06:04
T And the first AC loss due to CFIT also had electrical failure, hadn't it?
​​​​

No electrical failure on the Jakarta crash. One pilot failure very analogous to the TE901 pilot failure.

blind pew
6th May 2019, 06:04
My first solo I bounced and not knowing what to do nearly destroyed the aircraft. Similarly I had the oxygen masks out on my only one on a jet before I figured out how to handle one.
Many many pilots and a lot of instructors do not know how to salvage one.
My last passenger flight in a light aircraft saw the nose gear wrecked when the owner with more than 1000 hours on type bounced and then pushed the stick forward.
We were landing upwards on a mountain strip. I stopped his second and third attempts to kill us.
I've taught many qualified glider pilots who should have already been shown what to do but didn't know how to salvage a bounce without the luxury of a power plant.
Blame the system, lack of understanding and fear.
You generally bounce because you have too much energy and if a go around is not possible or desirable then roughly maintain attitude unless extreme. As the energy bleeds off the aircraft will descend and a check back on the stick will produce something comfortable.
Part of the problem is the philosophy that the aircraft must be on the ground in the TDZ regardless of runway length available.

mangere1957
6th May 2019, 06:16
If its in direct law then likely a handful... :(


If every landing was in direct law then pilots wouldn't find it "a handful" when they were faced with a direct law landing, no doubt with other problems as well.

roksajet
6th May 2019, 06:42
What do you think of airliners introducing an automatic cabin baggage lock in emergency situations? That would stop people from trying to grab luggage in the cabin in emergency situations.
This is probably the only way that people will leave their cabin luggage behind. Every pax that took his luggage with him in this case is probably responsible for a death for at least 5 pax for blocking the aisle for a few seconds.

jugofpropwash
6th May 2019, 06:54
Locked baggage compartments would make the situation worse as people struggled to try and open them. If airlines wanted to prevent this they could simply ban cabin luggage.

I was about to say the same thing regarding locking the bins. If airlines would stop charging for checked bags that would be a start - and then do away with the overhead bins, and only allow what fits under the seat. People are still going to insist on evacuating with their stuff, but a readily accessed purse or laptop case isn't going to cause the aisle blockage and other issues that luggage will. And it's more than sufficient to carry any "must haves" like passport or meds.

arearadar70
6th May 2019, 06:55
lost comms is 7600. If they did indeed squawk 7500 then probably a mistake.
In my day as an Air Traffic Contoller, a long time ago, Squawk 7500 meant lost. 7600 meant Radio/Comms failure and 7700 meant Mayday

A4
6th May 2019, 07:09
Part of the problem is the philosophy that the aircraft must be on the ground in the TDZ regardless of runway length available.

Problem? Ensuring you’re in the touchdown zone is a primary preventative aim (no pun) to stop runway excursion. It’s a pretty fundamental requirement - and not difficult. If a pilot is unable to consistently land within the TDZ then there is something wrong with their training/SMS/them. Runway length is irrelevant - encouraging long/deep landings “because you can” is the first hole in the cheese.....nothing as useless as runway behind you.

I know nothing about the SSJ. Is it FBW? Approach looked fast (flapless?) SSJ version of Direct Law? Stuck THS? Massive / multiple electrical failure can lead to any number of issues.

A4

blind pew
6th May 2019, 07:16
Occasionally there are conditions that catch even the best out such as wind shear, the effects of low level inversions, stress including fatigue, wake turbulence with a tailwind and a go around or thump it in in the TDZ isn't the optimal solution.

MungoP
6th May 2019, 07:21
//ru.flightaware.com/live/flight/AFL1492/history/20190505/1500Z/UUEE/ULMM (https://ru.flightaware.com/live/flight/AFL1492/history/20190505/1500Z/UUEE/ULMM) Indicates that a/c attained 3000 ft before instigating a rapid descent to 1000 while positioning for the approach with an orbit prior to joining finals. speed over threshold 150 kts.

GICASI2
6th May 2019, 07:26
Bounce into an undamped fugoid - something we were all warned about prior to first solo. Bounce? Hold the landing attitude and wait for the impending contact! Or GO AROUND or don’t bounce in the first place.

CaptainProp
6th May 2019, 07:29
I don't see flames until second bounce. Do others here agree?

Agree. Thereís a (security cam?) video showing aircraft from quartering tail view from first bounce and it catches fire only once it touches down the second time.

CP

Icarus2001
6th May 2019, 07:35
Many many pilots and a lot of instructors do not know how to salvage one. You are basing this definitive statement on what exactly?
I can tell you that here in Australia, where I have trained and examined dozens of flight instructors, all of them were trained in bounced landings. I had to play student and try various ways of messing up the landing and they had to recover. The catch was I had to also be able to recover if they messed up the recovery. That gave me a great deal of respect for the design of training singles.

His dudeness
6th May 2019, 07:35
I know nothing about the SSJ. Is it FBW? Approach looked fast (flapless?) SSJ version of Direct Law? Stuck THS? Massive / multiple electrical failure can lead to any number of issues.
A4

Yes, its FBW. Apparently Liebherr, Honeywell & Thales supply the avionics & FBW stuff. Someplace it was mentioned that they were in "direct law" - no idea what that means on a SSJ100.

Thruster763
6th May 2019, 08:00
Being in aviation claims Iíve seen my share of lightening strikes on all types of jets(albeit no Russian iron), to the point where they are the most benign claims I see. Not one of those aircraft crashed or so much declared an emergency. It makes me wonder about the design of the Superjet.

Not really benign, e.g.
https://www.baaa-acro.com/crash/crash-dornier-do228-bodo (https://www.baaa-acro.com/crash/crash-dornier-do228-bodo)That one blew ot an elevator control . Lightning protection is a dynamic subject with more electronic systems and new structural materils and methods.

andrasz
6th May 2019, 08:00
Looking at the last videos ... aircraft came extremely fast ( possibly no flaps)
Aftermath photos clearly show slats & flaps deployed (at about 25), by the look of it aircraft was configured for a normal landing.

A4
6th May 2019, 08:02
I agree that there are any number of phenomena that can compromise what happens from 50’ over the threshold to the end of the TDZ. But, as professionals, it is our responsibility to assess/analyse the effects of that phenomena and to take the appropriate and safest course of action. Exiting the TDZ still airborne be it due to floating or because of a bounce DEMANDS, BY SOP, a balked landing procedure to be executed at my company - about the only exception would be if you’re on fire or carrying a really significant technical issue.

Performing deep/long landings whether deliberate or as a result of questionable technique are indicative of a poor SOP culture. This potentially leads to a scenario where someone misjudges a landing....but it’s “ok” because we’re allowed to land outside the TDZ....and then you touch down at the end of the reciprocal TDZ....

Keep it standard. Keep it safe. Don’t put yourself in a position where you no longer know where you are beyond the threshold.......

A4

Apologies for the thread creep. Out.

Blackfriar
6th May 2019, 08:07
Looks like one fire truck was there at about 2 mins, but then spent the next 30 secs wafting its cannon on the ground, up in the air and no-where near the front of the fire which is where the people might be. Very poor response in both time and capability.

Blackfriar
6th May 2019, 08:11
There is video of people running to the hangars and fire trucks just setting off and driving past them. Sounds pretty poor. As usual it's always three things, initial problem, very poor (crash) landng ruptures fuel tanks, slow evacuation/poor fire response = deaths.

andrasz
6th May 2019, 08:13
If they were only alerted when the aircraft actually crashed, it appears they got there within the standard. 2 minutes can be a long time.

Assuming that the video starts about the same time as ATC would have raised the alarm, with a 5-10 second lag after the fire broke out, it took them 110 seconds for the first truck to reach the scene. While it is just within reccommended limits, this aircraft squawked 7700 for 6 minutes prior to landing, plenty of time for three units to have been positioned at each end and and abeam of the runway, like we see elsewhere at the slightest hint of any emergency (like chief purser chipping the varnish on a fingernail). In theory that positioning should permit reaching any position on or near the runway in maximum 30-40 seconds, and probably the first time in living memory it could have made a difference.

guadaMB
6th May 2019, 08:26
I agree with the other poster. Baggage compartments should be locked during take off, landing and during emergencies. We will never know how many lives this would have saved in various accidents including this one.

A luggage compartment BLOCKING would lead to the worst scenario of all: people INTENDING INSISTENTLY to open the lids with no result.
The collapse would be badder than now...

Ganzic
6th May 2019, 08:34
The implementation of locks would introduce a lot of extra weight, certification, extra SOPs and new procedures. It's a big rethink and redesign. I doubt this will happen in the next 10 or even 20 years.

The quick and simple solution is what Ryanair and Wizz did, but only partially. Stop people coming on board with huge bags. They only allow certain amount of tickets to be sold with onboard luggage.

​​​​​​If however, airlines would stop cashing in on these and ban massive bags on board it would certainly stop these unnecessary deaths.

However this will stop them selling priority and it's a massive cash cow.

FlightDetent
6th May 2019, 08:45
andrasz: positioning a fire truck nearby landing runway, more significantly somewhere half-point abeam, with a partially uncontrollable aircraft approaching, does not sound like that much of a smart idea. I am not disputing your suspicion about the delay to start rescue efforts, just that the proposed could not have applied.

Hope to read your comments and account on the situation as more information unfolds, if you will have time later.

andrasz
6th May 2019, 08:52
andrasz: positioning a fire truck nearby landing runway, more significantly somewhere half-point abeam, with a partially uncontrollable aircraft approaching, does not sound like that much of a smart idea. I am not disputing your suspicion about the delay to start rescue efforts, just that the proposed could not have applied.
By abeam I meant at the appropriate position outsde the runway safety zone. All airports in their emergency response plans have such designated assembly positions for all runways (or they should), with what you say taken into consideration.

EDIT: Auxtank thanks for the video of the VS landing below, that is exactly how it should be done.

Nomad2
6th May 2019, 08:55
Every time there's an evacuation, we always get the usual droning on about pax taking their bags.
What do pax do every normal flight? They grab their bags and get off.
What do people do when frightened? They revert to type.

If you want to stop them taking their bags in an evacuation, put them in the hold.

Until the airlines are prepared to do this, there's not much point complaining about our passengers' behaviour, is there?

ManaAdaSystem
6th May 2019, 08:58
If this started with a lightning strike, I hope it happened because they were denied flying around the TS.
The combination of TS and Moscow is very bad. You ask for a diversion around the weather, and get NEGATIVE from ATC. There are so many restricted areas and very limited space to fly in.

exekcabincrew
6th May 2019, 09:03
What about special seals for the baggage compartments? Similar to the ones used for catering trolleys, but much stronger? Mechanical locks would need approval, be expensive, etc, but this sort of seal would be very cheap and easy to approve.

The hat rack could have 2 holes (easy to add to existing AC) where the seals would go though, these seals would have a large band hanging from them with stripes on it or something signaling the hat rack is locked. Time-permitting, the pax could be allowed 2 mins before the cabin is secure to get their precious passports and Ipads from their bags and after that the bags would go to the luggage compartment that would be sealed straight away. So now everyone has their precious sh*t with them and they know that the compartments are sealed and not to be touched.

Plus if someone would try to force the compartment on ground, the guy standing behind would definitely push the idiot and no bag would be retrieved, the other pax wouldn't see any bags coming out and wouldn't try to get theirs.

Seriously, how difficult is this to implement?

Auxtank
6th May 2019, 09:10
andrasz: positioning a fire truck nearby landing runway, more significantly somewhere half-point abeam, with a partially uncontrollable aircraft approaching, does not sound like that much of a smart idea. I am not disputing your suspicion about the delay to start rescue efforts, just that the proposed could not have applied.

Hope to read your comments and account on the situation as more information unfolds, if you will have time later.


Four fire trucks and support vehicles within feet of engines before the thing has even stopped moving...
Virgin Atlantic VS43 Boeing 747- 400 G-VROM Emergency Landing, Gatwick.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZqDP-FMgTy8

slip and turn
6th May 2019, 09:32
Never mind the apparently newsworthy symptoms of industry-wide poor evacuation strategies (strategies which result in easy trolley evacuation for those so disposed nearest the exits), I am becoming sick of repeated airings on Sky News at least of the apparent official Aeroflot statement claiming evacuation was achieved in 55 seconds and invitation to compare that to the "industry norm" of 90 seconds. Forty odd people (more than half) did not successfully evacuate and died, so the Aeroflot statement, if correctly reported, is perfunctorily abject nonsense. Notwithstanding their embarrassment, has the entire industry really learned so little about evacuation imperatives since 55 died in the fire at Manchester on British Airtours 28M in 1985?

MPN11
6th May 2019, 09:36
there is no technological exports what so ever. ... apart from Military equipment?

Bend alot
6th May 2019, 09:44
Never mind the apparently newsworthy symptoms of industry-wide poor evacuation strategies (strategies which result in easy trolley evacuation for those so disposed nearest the exits), I am becoming sick of repeated airings on Sky News at least of the apparent official Aeroflot statement claiming evacuation was achieved in 55 seconds and invitation to compare that to the "industry norm" of 90 seconds. Forty odd people (more than half) did not successfully evacuate and died, so the Aeroflot statement, if correctly reported, is perfunctorily abject nonsense. Notwithstanding their embarrassment, has the entire industry really learned so little about evacuation imperatives since 55 died in the fire at Manchester on British Airtours 28M in 1985?

I think most agree from the footage - at 90 seconds many had perished, they already had I guess at 55 seconds.

I expect the bags issue was a small % of those that could have survived but did not.

If you were behind the wing your chances were low - all that smoke and flame that entered the cabin was going up hill toward the cockpit - you see several videos of it exiting the cockpit (the pilot and co-pilot had oxygen and smoke goggles).
That sort of smoke will take you down in just a few breaths.

andrasz
6th May 2019, 09:49
I am becoming sick of repeated airings on Sky News at least of the apparent official Aeroflot statement claiming evacuation was achieved in 55 seconds and invitation to compare that to the "industry norm" of 90 seconds.

For anything, the available video (https://www.pprune.org/showthread.php?p=10463896) clearly shows that it took 103 seconds from the time the door was opened till last person coming down the slide. It then took another 37 seconds till cockpit was evacuated using the ropes. A full minute later a crew member (probably cockpit) climbs back in, probably after having realised that there were still people inside.

FL11967
6th May 2019, 09:51
Another thing, now about the SSJ.

As a guy who follows the situation in Russia and the Russian politics pretty close, I can tell you with 100% certainty that the point of developing the SSJ was never to build a good AC. The main objective was to steal money from the Russian budget to fund yachts and mansions to Putin's friends and to fuel state-TV propaganda about how Russia is developing tech products. This may sound as a childish conspiracy, but check any other Russian projects, the space rockets fall half of times, the Russian cars are sh*t, there is no technological exports what so ever.

The slow response is due to the very low qualification of the Russian response teams and the absolute dont-give-a-fu**ness about human life. The same exact thing happens every time there is some sort of disaster. The firetrucks have no water, the ambulance has a flat and can't get to the scene. The country has become a 3rd world hole essentially.

My advice to you, don't fly, drive, buy anything Russian. Have some respect for your life and health.

Thanks to adopting "democracy" and capitalism without any transition.

Interflug
6th May 2019, 09:54
...This may sound as a childish conspiracy, but check any other Russian projects, the space rockets fall half of times, the Russian cars are sh*t, there is no technological exports what so ever.
...
That's indeed childish nonsense, considering the Russian space program didn't lose a man since 1980 or so. Vs the US lost two complete ships with all souls on board since. Surely the Russkis are not a technological power house of innovation, but particularly the space program - the only one that currently safely flies people into space regularly, including the US astronauts - is a badly chosen example for exposing their backwardness.

Interesting: https://www.boeing.com/news/frontiers/archive/2005/september/mainfeature1.html
The Russkis might not have the technological wealth of others, but they certainly have the brains for it.

MungoP
6th May 2019, 09:58
ANVALDRA If there were no such things as stereotypes the word would never have been invented. Russia has had a reputation for decades of stealing technology from more advanced nations including many aircraft designs and then manufacturing inferior products. It's also known for its secretiveness and antagonistic attitude toward the west even post USSR. All this is well documented.

slfsteve
6th May 2019, 09:59
With regards to cabin baggage, simply charge people £100 to take it on board and limit it to the first 50 people. then shown people a rather graphic video as part of the safety demonstration showing what happens when you prioritise someones life over your bag.

Watching people walk away from the plane after the crash they had no urgency to get away from the plane and just wandered around, the truck that was trying to get there struggled to get through.

Neufunk
6th May 2019, 10:07
At some points in the video, you can see bodies coming down head first, either after crawling or being pushed by someone else. Also, congratulations to that brave man that decided to climb back after evacuating, in order to see if he can still do anything. The FAs probably left too early.

DingerX
6th May 2019, 10:08
Not many came out after 55 seconds; those that did may have been cabin crew. In any case, the statement about 55 seconds can show that, in fact, the "industry norm" of 90 seconds (with half the doors inop) is inadequate.

As for Unterlinden, the point wasn't just that there was plenty of fault to be distributed, and not just the ATC, but rather that inaccurate popular media portrayals of the fault fueled the misery. Similarly, saying that "The jerk in 4C killed 5 people by grabbing his bag" will have real-world consequences. With smartphones, someone's going to have the grim task of sorting through all the onboard video/audio and assessing the evacuation.

racedo
6th May 2019, 10:09
It's also known for its secretiveness and antagonistic attitude toward the west even post USSR.

Yup they opened all those new militry bases and brought people into a military alliance and invaded and destabilised all those countrys thousands of miles from their borders................ oh wait.

As for secretiveness........... think wikileaks told us some of what was happening in the "Free" West, where your personal data is all for sale.

vanHorck
6th May 2019, 10:10
Watching people walk away from the plane after the crash they had no urgency to get away from the plane and just wandered around, the truck that was trying to get there struggled to get through.

People evacuating a fatal air crash will be in a trance, oblivious about their surroundings, there are plenty of examples where people just wander aimlessly. It is up to the blue light services to guide these people away safely.

MPN11
6th May 2019, 10:17
Having seen a fair number of 'evacuation videos', I still wonder how I would react if the worst happened. No, I wouldn't take my bag [I hope] and I would get as far away as possible [I hope]. But you can never be certain exactly how you would react under those circumstances .. you just hope you will react sensibly.

taraglen
6th May 2019, 10:38
Why so much intense flame at the back of the aircraft? Fuel is in the wings and photos I have seen suggest the wings are intact

Trav a la
6th May 2019, 10:38
A couple of observations after viewing the various videos.

Just like the Manchester air disaster of the BA 737, in the last few seconds of forward movement the aircraft skewed/turned perpendicular to the wind causing the flames to fan across the rear fuselage. Possibly caused by one engine still running. It probably sealed the fate of some unlucky souls who may have otherwise evacuated.

There were gaps of in the evacuation line coming down the slides, could this be due to PAX retrieving their baggage or just panic and pushing due to the situation.

R.I.P all lost souls.

ClubClass
6th May 2019, 10:42
By any measure that landing(s) was a shocker. If both engines were performing adequately well, then there is no excuse for such a landing - lightning strike - or not. It appears that the landing contributed to the start of the fire.
Perhaps the pilots were unable to extend flaps. I'm not a real world pilot but the aircraft looked like it approached very fast which may have been a consequence of inability to extend flaps and resulted in the heavy/bounced touchdown?

CodyBlade
6th May 2019, 10:43
BA 38 the landing gear struts came right through the wings.

Redtony
6th May 2019, 10:56
I agree with your scenario, i.e. first bounce before video starts, but must say that we have no idea yet of possible handling difficulties.

Auxtank
6th May 2019, 10:57
BA 38 the landing gear struts came right through the wings.


No it didn't.

It left it's right main about sixty yards behind and over to the right and it sheared it's left main flat to the ground and dragging behind which caused the inboard flap to backflip over the trailing edge of the wing.


https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1024x701/dtxfmmkw0au1ntu_7d49c9b441e17e97f31564b45962d4be0bbe51b7.jpg

Edit; Having said that the right main before detaching DID rupture the fuel tanks and there was significant fuel leakage. Point taken.

Redtony
6th May 2019, 10:58
Except there may have been control issue we don't know about

SamYeager
6th May 2019, 10:59
If people want to go on about Russia's failings or lack of them please take it to Jet Blast and leave this thread to details about the crash.

Thruster763
6th May 2019, 11:00
When it's made a criminal offence.

Then try and prosecute someone for it and see how it goes going after people who behave irrationally in an emergency.

We all know what we'd do when watching it on YouTube. Whole different ball game in the middle of it.

Technically it is an offence in most countries under the requirement to follow the instructions of the crew.
Only practical answer is to stop cabin baggage bigger than will go under a seat, enforce it 100% and remove the ovehead bins. The airlines are never going to do this though.

Saddath
6th May 2019, 11:17
People evacuating a fatal air crash will be in a trance, oblivious about their surroundings, there are plenty of examples where people just wander aimlessly. It is up to the blue light services to guide these people away safely.

I second this. I'm a first responder too (not in the aviation-sector). I've seen people in panic and fear for their life, while trying to rescue them. Some people will act completly irrational and they may be doing things without thinking about it.

I've seen people jumping out of burning buildings, people that were completely frozen, people that are totally erratic and need to be grabbed and calmed down.

Most pax only experience with leaving airplanes is:
- Grab your luggage
- leave airplane

I think some of them haven't tought about it while acting.
Just a tought before everyone criminalizes the people leaving with the luggage.

etrang
6th May 2019, 11:20
, I am becoming sick of repeated airings on Sky News at least of the apparent official Aeroflot statement claiming evacuation was achieved in 55 seconds
There's a very simple solution to that.

Airclues
6th May 2019, 11:30
Looks like a bounce followed by a hard landing;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTPHxAYAVAg

Sunfish
6th May 2019, 11:35
For the avoidance of doubt, anyone who has ever looked closely at Russian aircraft will know that Russia is more than capable of designing and building high quality safe reliable products.

davidjohnson6
6th May 2019, 11:38
It seems that a hard landing led to fuel tank(s) rupturing and fuel then igniting.

Would one expect a similiar rupture with other comparable aircraft (eg C Series) after a comparable landing or does it seem particularly unfortunate that the fuel tanks did not remain intact ?

Nomad2
6th May 2019, 11:43
Total speculation, but...maybe
Lightning strike, electrical failure. Thus 7600.
its a glass cockpit jet, so maybe limited speed info. So bring it in at a safe, but fast speed.
Land, electrical failure, so no spoilers. Bounce....
The rest we've seen.

exekcabincrew
6th May 2019, 11:47
That's indeed childish nonsense, considering the Russian space program didn't lose a man since 1980 or so. Vs the US lost two complete ships with all souls on board since. Surely the Russkis are not a technological power house of innovation, but particularly the space program - the only one that currently safely flies people into space regularly, including the US astronauts - is a badly chosen example for exposing their backwardness.

Interesting: https://www.boeing.com/news/frontiers/archive/2005/september/mainfeature1.html
The Russkis might not have the technological wealth of others, but they certainly have the brains for it.

I don't want to turn this into a discussion about Russia, but the Russian space programme relies on Soviet-made rockets and technologies. All that stuff is around 50 years old and very reliable, that's why it has been working, up until recently when rockets started to fall one after another. An engineer earns around 25K roubles (400 bucks) to assemble space components, same goes to guys assembling the SSJ. What sort of quality can you expect?

WingSlinger
6th May 2019, 11:48
What do you think of airliners introducing an automatic cabin baggage lock in emergency situations? That would stop people from trying to grab luggage in the cabin in emergency situations.

That might slow people even more, as they are feverishly trying to open a locked compartment. Especially if a few have opened due to impact, but not "theirs", the ones with valuable duty-free, inside.

PaxBritannica
6th May 2019, 11:49
I second this. I'm a first responder too (not in the aviation-sector). I've seen people in panic and fear for their life, while trying to rescue them. Some people will act completly irrational and they may be doing things without thinking about it.

I've seen people jumping out of burning buildings, people that were completely frozen, people that are totally erratic and need to be grabbed and calmed down.

Most pax only experience with leaving airplanes is:
- Grab your luggage
- leave airplane

I think some of them haven't tought about it through while acting.
Just a tought before everyone criminalizes the people leaving with the luggage.
Thanks for this, Saddath.

I'd like to add that emergency evacuation goes against everything passengers have been 'trained' to do over years of flying as pax. We're taught that it's vital we are submissive and quiet. We queue between the ribbons, obediently. We empty our belongings into a tray, obediently. We wait until our seat row is ready to board, obediently. We present our documentation, obediently. We sit in our assigned seats, obediently. We fasten our seatbelts, obediently. We restore our seats to the upright position, obediently. We switch off our electronic devices, obediently. We collect our hand-luggage and leave by the indicated exit, obediently.

We know the routine off by heart, and we know that we have to accept the routine and adjust ourselves to minor changes such as leaving by stairs and bus instead of air-bridge..

We fail to watch the safety drill, because we've seen it several hundred times before, and it's designed cleverly to suggest that it's an exercise in box-ticking. The airline absolutely doesn't want you to think that flying is dangerous, and they especially don't want you to think that flying with THIS airline is more dangerous than with others.

Passengers don't get trained for emergencies, like crew. We have no muscle memory, we are all startle factor. Even with flames and smoke, the cabin crew screaming unfamiliar instructions instead of "Take care when opening the overhead lockers..." may not compute.

Airlines WANT docile, unthinking passengers. If we didn't tacitly agree to be docile and unthinking, airlines would go bust.

Traffic_Is_Er_Was
6th May 2019, 11:56
In the video taken from right front, the smoke does not start coming from the cockpit windows and RF door until approx 1:40 after the aircraft stops. The people who escape during the 1st 60 secs generally get up from the bottom of the slide and walk/run away. In the remaining 40 secs the very few that use the slide stay collapsed at the bottom, or walk away and collapse. If the smoke from the door indicates the interior finally caught fire, it was all over well before then due heat/smoke/fumes.

blind pew
6th May 2019, 12:04
Based on what I've experienced mainly in Europe over 50 years, heavy jets, light aircraft, gliders and ultalights. (Even paragliders with wind shear below 40ft).

And to answer wrt TDZ and SOP; specific bomb threat, slow spooling up low bypass, positive wind shear at low level, rotor, significant terrain in the overshoot, low fuel and running out of flight control authority..all realistic possibilities that I've come across when how to correctly handle a bounce is essential.
From one of the videos it shows the aircraft is pitched nose down after the first bounce and at the last moment pitched up which would have rotated the gear into the runway.

fergusd
6th May 2019, 12:10
Four fire trucks and support vehicles within feet of engines before the thing has even stopped moving...
Virgin Atlantic VS43 Boeing 747- 400 G-VROM Emergency Landing, Gatwick.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZqDP-FMgTy8

Certainly an interesting interpretation of the video, meanwhile : aircraft stops moving at time 1:43, first vehicle parks up next to aircraft at 2:24, 41 seconds later . . .

Fd

andrasz
6th May 2019, 12:20
Certainly an interesting interpretation...
FD, I think Auxtank meant that as a figure of speech, the trucks were in position about 25-30 seconds after the plane came to a halt, the best one could expect under any circumstances (as oppsed to more than 90 at SVO).

rog747
6th May 2019, 12:38
Early this morning it was stated this was an immediate return to land, due to control difficulties experienced by the crew after take off (no fuel dump) The plane was said to have been hit by lightning shortly after take off - maybe disabling the radio, comms, and other systems, reported Russia's Interfax news agency.

The reported first attempt to land ended in a GA due aircraft too fast and high, (need confirmation of this GA) and the second landing was sadly very fast & unstable, baulked and control was lost - hard landing, one or both main gears collapsed and huge split fuel fire erupted during the long ground slide.
(aircraft seemingly NOT on fire prior to landing)
Flats and LE slats were deployed for the Landing.

Overhead bins did not seem to fall down, or open on the heavy landing from video evidence.

Rear exits both unusable - no over-wing exits fitted to this type - EVAC signal and chimes heard in pax video, EVAC was from from doors 1L and 1R (amazing that the 1L slide survived the fire)
Any over-wing exits fitted may anyway have been breached/unusable by the ferocity of the fire up to midships.

Fire services were not on scene immediately to provide foam over the serious fuel fire, but were in situ whilst the EVAC was still in progress.

The cross wind did blow the fire back away from the mid and forward fuselage, allowing exit from both forward doors. But the fire was very close, or even under door 1L.

The rear flight attendant remained on board assisting everyone to try to be evacuated but he died in the fire, unable to open the rear doors.

A. Muse
6th May 2019, 12:53
The issue of pax taking cabin baggage with them in emergency evacuations rears its' head yet again. Only legislation will prevent large bags being taken on board as, has been mentioned above, baggage is a revenue source.

Having experienced a cabin free of baggage on a flight, I can say it hastened loading and unloading of SLF and was altogether a pleasant experience. Sadly this experience was as a result of 9/11.

I was booked on the first flight out of LGW on 9/12 and check-in staff had no idea what to do, and delayed check in whilst a decision was made. The instruction was given 'no cabin baggage except passports and essential medication'.

100 pax opening hold bags to stuff in hand baggage in a check-in queue was a mess, but it happened. The resulting flight was comfortable with no one getting up to access lockers, and disembarkation was swift.

I for one would like to see a 'no cabin baggage' rule, or at least an enforced maximum of 12 x 12 x 6 inches or a foreign equivalent.

A. Muse
6th May 2019, 13:00
Just a thought, (my name is after all A. Muse). Why not save weight and expense by not installing overhead lockers in the first place?

hoss183
6th May 2019, 13:00
The reported first attempt to land ended in a GA due aircraft too fast and high, (need confirmation of this GA) .

There was no-first attempt and GA, look at the FR24 trace posted multiple times in this thread

fergusd
6th May 2019, 13:03
FD, I think Auxtank meant that as a figure of speech, the trucks were in position about 25-30 seconds after the plane came to a halt, the best one could expect under any circumstances (as oppsed to more than 90 at SVO).
Appreciated, comment was more to demonstrate that with the distances involved and the variability of the situation, practically there will always be delays and not insubstantial ones.

rog747
6th May 2019, 13:07
Just a thought, (my name is after all A. Muse). Why not save weight and expense by not installing overhead lockers I the first place?

Really? It will never catch on...

https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1024x695/1470214_69abd5c2e44e975e361fd282eae03b13bebe60e6.jpg
DC-8 KLM 1960's
Photo c airliners.net

rog747
6th May 2019, 13:14
There was no-first attempt and GA, look at the FR24 trace posted multiple times in this thread

Thanks and yes indeed I have followed the thread - Just that various reports say that this was a 2nd attempt at a landing - FR24 can play up too?

Thanks for confirmations.

EDLB
6th May 2019, 13:17
Andrasz video is a must see for airport fire fighters. 30 seconds can make a lot of difference. As earlier they can cool the cabin, as more people have a chance to escape. Also all the small vehicles standing in the way of optimal positioning the water canon fire trucks.

davidjohnson6
6th May 2019, 13:18
As humans, we like to believe a catastrophe like this will never happen to me - it can only affect other people

The first airline to impose a policy drastically limiting hand luggage for safety reasons (as opposed to 'not enough space in overhead lockers') will likely see a significant fall in sales revenue while competitors continuing to allow hand luggage unchanged will see a commercial gain.

If limiting hand luggage in a significant way is to happen, it has to either be via Govt passing law, or by airlines imposing a monetary charge for hand luggage (thus leading to many pax choosing to save money and cutting their hand luggage voluntarily). The events of 9/11 were a one-off and people accepted the hike in security screening temporarily because it was a one-off... persuading that 9/11 was the new normal was never going to work

WHBM
6th May 2019, 13:19
That's indeed childish nonsense, considering the Russian space program didn't lose a man since 1980 or so. Vs the US lost two complete ships with all souls on board since.
Likewise the only widebody manufacturer never to have had a passenger fatality on one of their large aircraft is ... Ilyushin.

ATC Watcher
6th May 2019, 13:40
Likewise the only widebody manufacturer never to have had a passenger fatality on one of their large aircraft is ... Ilyushin.
Not quite true. I was in Luxemburg in 1982 and a IL-62 crashed there , there were fatalities .
Google found this to refresh my memory : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeroflot_Flight_343 in fact the accident was a bit similar to this SSJ one .
There also have a been a couple in East Germany times in the 70s..
and of course if you include IL-76s that is totally another statistic :rolleyes:

rog747
6th May 2019, 13:42
To apologise for OT on another say day in aviation

But this hand baggage issue is all of the airlines own making - they blatantly offer CBO only fares and then everyone moans then there is too much hand and wheeled sized luggage brought on board.

The answer is simple - stop the CBO fares - Only allow one small piece like before, that must be able to fit under your seat, (even new A350's in Y have no centre overhead bins)
(and maybe also allow a ladies handbag or a laptop/man bag/duty frees)

FlightDetent
6th May 2019, 13:46
Just a thought, (my name is after all A. Muse). Why not save weight and expense by not installing overhead lockers I the first place?
I had this other idea for long time, wonder what the comments here would be. The OVHD bins on my A/C have a manufacturer's max loading limit. I presume from crashworthiness anyway. So how about we divide the number of racks times loading by the number of passenger seats and make a weight rule for onboard luggage? Small items (purses, cameras, laptops) and dutyfree to go under the seats. I think the overall amount of items carried would be about half.

Paranoid
6th May 2019, 13:58
Sad case for all, RIP.
If reporting is at all correct TR Code 7600 (comms failure) after lightening strike.
Now whilst this is inconvenient it does not necessitate a rapid immediate return.
So probably a lot more going on.
If the Flight control computers were affected this would have compromised the normal fly by wire systems and may have left the crew with degraded flight control.
This may go some way to explaining the Heavy Landing / Poor bounce recovery technique that resulted in the loss of main UC and resultant fire.
Some of my colleagues in a previous life had the pleasure of training Russian pilots on the B757, and whilst certain aspects of the training was 'challenging' the aircraft handling near the ground was generally very good.
Lets hope the inquiry comes up with the answers without politics getting in the way.

Nomad2
6th May 2019, 14:03
For pities sake 7500 is unlawful interference, not comms failure.

Easy way to remember:
75 taken alive
76 technical glitch
77 go to heaven

A. Muse
6th May 2019, 14:08
posted by FlightDetentmake a weight rule for onboard luggage?
Many flights used to enforce a 7kg limit. Years back I flew from PER to CCK and my carry on was weighed at 7.5 kg. I was told to take the Sunday newspaper out of the bag and carry it under my arm, as that would be OK!

Hotel Tango
6th May 2019, 14:17
Not quite true. I was in Luxemburg in 1982 and a IL-62 crashed there

I believe that the Il-62 was single aisle, thus not considered a widebody.

yanrair
6th May 2019, 14:20
Video from onbaord during the landing.

twitter/Ozkok/status/1125122006674964480 (https://www.pprune.org/twitter/Ozkok_/status/1125122006674964480)

dear tlott
getting PAGE NOT FOUND. has it been pulled?

mikeepbc
6th May 2019, 14:20
According to Interfax citing the captain of SU1492, after a lightning strike the FBW system switched to direct law.
"командир экипажа Денис Евдокимов сообщил: 'Из-за молнии у нас произошла потеря радиосвязи и переход самолета не через компьютер, а напрямую - на аварийный режим управления' "

mikeepbc
6th May 2019, 14:23
dear tlott
getting PAGE NOT FOUND. has it been pulled?

Go to twitter website and append Ozkok_/status/1125122006674964480 at the end of the address line.

GordonR_Cape
6th May 2019, 14:38
dear tlottgetting PAGE NOT FOUND. has it been pulled?

Try the RT version of the "bounce" footage: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTPHxAYAVAg

4runner
6th May 2019, 14:39
It is Russia, someone has to pay for the bad publicity, they either have heroes, or someone goes to jail ... there seems to be no middle ground.

sometimes the same person can wear both hats in one decade, then switch hats again.

Thruster763
6th May 2019, 14:44
It seems that a hard landing led to fuel tank(s) rupturing and fuel then igniting.

Would one expect a similiar rupture with other comparable aircraft (eg C Series) after a comparable landing or does it seem particularly unfortunate that the fuel tanks did not remain intact ?

No, one would not. It is a certification requirement that this does not happen in a survivable accident see FAR/CS 25.963 (d)
https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/dfu/Easy%20Access%20Rules%20CS-25%20%28Amendment%2021%29.pdf
The BA38 crash would have be a different story if the B777 had not met theis requirement better. Its tanks dd of course have far less fuel in them, but there was no significant leakage.

andrasz
6th May 2019, 14:55
Thruster763, the SSJ was certified to EASA standards, so on paper at least it met those same requirements.

FE Hoppy
6th May 2019, 15:19
No, one would not. It is a certification requirement that this does not happen in a survivable accident see FAR/CS 25.963 (d)
https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/dfu/Easy%20Access%20Rules%20CS-25%20%28Amendment%2021%29.pdf
The BA38 crash would have be a different story if the B777 had not met theis requirement better. Its tanks dd of course have far less fuel in them, but there was no significant leakage.

As we currently have no idea what the impact load was it is impossible to speculate on another types ability to survive the same.

Blackfriar
6th May 2019, 15:20
The issue of pax taking cabin baggage with them in emergency evacuations rears its' head yet again. Only legislation will prevent large bags being taken on board as, has been mentioned above, baggage is a revenue source.

Having experienced a cabin free of baggage on a flight, I can say it hastened loading and unloading of SLF and was altogether a pleasant experience. Sadly this experience was as a result of 9/11.

I was booked on the first flight out of LGW on 9/12 and check-in staff had no idea what to do, and delayed check in whilst a decision was made. The instruction was given 'no cabin baggage except passports and essential medication'.

100 pax opening hold bags to stuff in hand baggage in a check-in queue was a mess, but it happened. The resulting flight was comfortable with no one getting up to access lockers, and disembarkation was swift.

I for one would like to see a 'no cabin baggage' rule, or at least an enforced maximum of 12 x 12 x 6 inches or a foreign equivalent.

I, for one, will not entrust my laptop to hold baggage. I've seen loaders (I used to be a dispatcher). So this will never happen. If you have any baggage in the cabin, people will try to take it with them, even with flames and smoke in the cabin. So limiting size does very little to change behaviour.

Blackfriar
6th May 2019, 15:24
FD, I think Auxtank meant that as a figure of speech, the trucks were in position about 25-30 seconds after the plane came to a halt, the best one could expect under any circumstances (as oppsed to more than 90 at SVO).

And being just 30 seconds behind, if there had been a fire, the foam cannon would have started before they arrived. Look at the video today, foam everywhere but on the fire for at least 30 seconds.

DDDriver
6th May 2019, 15:38
BBC confirming (for what thatís worth) lightning strike.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-48174169

susier
6th May 2019, 15:46
"If you have any baggage in the cabin, people will try to take it with them, even with flames and smoke in the cabin. So limiting size does very little to change behaviour."

Quite right but I wonder if the aim should be not to forbid luggage in the cabin per se, but to make sure that the habit of people to take it with them doesn't involve their standing in the aisle to do so, or having to wheel it out, thus significantly obstructing other people's egress.

So if it can't be stowed overhead (the idea of not having passenger lockers) and is small enough not to be an obstacle in itself (forbidding larger wheeled cases, or anything that can't fit under a seat) then any time and obstruction involved in retrieving it prior to departing the plane will be minimised.

Thruster763
6th May 2019, 15:49
Thruster763, the SSJ was certified to EASA standards, so on paper at least it met those same requirements.

I'm aware what it was certfied to. Evidence of two heavy landings suggests it does not actually meet the requirement. There is no test requirement for 25.963 so it's design / analysis.
These are my personal views and my not reflect those of my employer.

Speed of Sound
6th May 2019, 16:08
BBC confirming (for what thatís worth) lightning strike.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-48174169

No they donít, they quote a passenger saying it was struck by lightning just before it crashed as well as saying that it was struck by lightning immediately after takeoff.

They also quote an Aeroflot source confirming that everyone was off within 55 seconds then embed a video which shows people departing the aircraft long after that time.

The usual rubbish reporting Iím afraid, which even the normally reliable BBC isnít immune from! 😡

DDDriver
6th May 2019, 16:29
...The usual rubbish reporting Iím afraid, which even the normally reliable BBC isnít immune from!

Oh absolutely. Theyíre especially poor with aviation-related reporting. They were quick enough yesterday to ďconfirmĒ all had survived...

bsieker
6th May 2019, 16:35
No, one would not. It is a certification requirement that this does not happen in a survivable accident see FAR/CS 25.963 (d)
https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/dfu/Easy%20Access%20Rules%20CS-25%20%28Amendment%2021%29.pdf
The BA38 crash would have be a different story if the B777 had not met theis requirement better. Its tanks dd of course have far less fuel in them, but there was no significant leakage.

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 (https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5422f3dbe5274a1314000495/1-2010_G-YMMM.pdf):

After the aircraft came to rest there was a significant fuel leak from the engines. [...] Fuel continued to leak from the engine fuel pipes until the spar valves were manually closed

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):

Fuel tanks must, so far as it is practicable, be designed, located and installed so that no fuel is released in or near the fuselage or near the engines in quantities sufficient to start a serious fire in otherwise survivable emergency landing conditions, and:
[...]
(5) Fuel tank installations must be such that the tanks will not rupture as a result of an engine pylon or engine mount or landing gear, tearing away as specified in CS 25.721(a) and (c).

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

jugofpropwash
6th May 2019, 16:42
Only practical answer is to stop cabin baggage bigger than will go under a seat, enforce it 100% and remove the ovehead bins. The airlines are never going to do this though.

It really does seem this would be the ideal solution, for a number of reasons. Not only is it safer in an emergency, but it's going to make it easier and faster to get through security. I can understand wanting to keep your phone/laptop/meds/papers/etc with you, but personally, the last thing I'd want is to lug all my clothes and whatnot around with me. Seems like it would make things easier for the flight attendants, too - people not blocking the aisles accessing their suitcases while FA's are trying to serve drinks, etc.

PAXboy
6th May 2019, 16:46
Changing cabin baggage standards and weights would require all airlines operating the same route to agree. It would require agreements around the world. It will not happen. The Pax want to pay less money and airlines facilitate that for them. Nothing will change - unless you can PROVE that cabin bags in evac cause MUTLIPLE deaths.

Thruster763
6th May 2019, 17:39
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 (https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5422f3dbe5274a1314000495/1-2010_G-YMMM.pdf):



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).

rab-k
6th May 2019, 18:07
Changing cabin baggage standards and weights would require all airlines operating the same route to agree. It would require agreements around the world. It will not happen. The Pax want to pay less money and airlines facilitate that for them. Nothing will change - unless you can PROVE that cabin bags in evac cause MUTLIPLE deaths.



ANO should be amend to state that pax attempting to retrieve, or who succeed in exiting the cabin accompanied by, cabin baggage during an emergency evacuation will be subject to criminal proceedings, which may result in a fine and/or custodial sentence.

If I had a loved one perish in such circumstances, and saw footage of at least one individual lumbering across the tarmac with a bag which appeared to be of max weight/dimensions, as can be seen the footage of this incident, I'd be looking to "have words".

rushestoo
6th May 2019, 18:32
I don't remember seeing this cited before - but it is a useful site that shows lightning activity and hope that it will add to the background knowledge of this discussion.
lightningmaps .org / blitzortung /europe/index.php?bo_page=archive&bo_map=0&lang=en&bo_year=2019&bo_month=05&bo_day=05&bo_hour_from=16&bo_hour_range=4&bo_animation=1#bo_arch_strikes_maps_form

I probably haven't the rights to post the full URL so split so you can use it with minimal effort - just remove the spaces.

tdracer
6th May 2019, 18:40
Would it be too much to ask that those who wish to endlessly discuss passenger evacuation - with or without bags - start their own, dedicated thread? This happens every :mad:ing time there is a crash with an evacuation - and the discussion never changes. Those of us who simply want to discuss the accident and the where/why/how end up having to sort through dozens or even hundreds of posts about people evacuating with their carry-on bags...:ugh:
Now, back to your regularly schedule program :E
I'm not sure comparisons to BA38 are particularly apt - that was basically a normal touchdown that happened to occur short of the runway with the gear coming off because they sank in the mud - not the high G vertical hit that this appears to have been.
If we assume that a lightning strike did take out multiple electrical systems, this is really worrisome. As I posted earlier, lightning is designed for and the technologies involved are fairly mature. While it can do localized damage at the attach/detach points, it should never take down essential or critical electrical systems. Further, even with FBW and FADEC common place since the mid 1980s, I can't think of a single case where a lightning strike did take down such a system.
This could point to a build quality issue (lightning protection is highly dependent on the integrity of bonding and grounding - a single high resistance electrical connection (and we're talking mili-ohms here) can ruin a systems lightning protection. Maintaining those low resistance bonds on aging aircraft is a big concern - but the Superjet hasn't been around long enough for that to be a likely issue.
Or, it could point to a problem with the existing standards, in which thousands of in-service aircraft could be at risk.

Victor Golf
6th May 2019, 18:44
It's such a strange accident, it will be very interesting to see the official report when it's all done.

Thruster763
6th May 2019, 19:12
<SNIP>
I'm not sure comparisons to BA38 are particularly apt - that was basically a normal touchdown that happened to occur short of the runway with the gear coming off because they sank in the mud - not the high G vertical hit that this appears to have been.
If we assume that a lightning strike did take out multiple electrical systems, this is really worrisome. As I posted earlier, lightning is designed for and the technologies involved are fairly mature. While it can do localized damage at the attach/detach points, it should never take down essential or critical electrical systems. Further, even with FBW and FADEC common place since the mid 1980s, I can't think of a single case where a lightning strike did take down such a system.
This could point to a build quality issue (lightning protection is highly dependent on the integrity of bonding and grounding - a single high resistance electrical connection (and we're talking mili-ohms here) can ruin a systems lightning protection. Maintaining those low resistance bonds on aging aircraft is a big concern - but the Superjet hasn't been around long enough for that to be a likely issue.
Or, it could point to a problem with the existing standards, in which thousands of in-service aircraft could be at risk.

The BA58 comparision was for fuel leakage from tanks when the UC is ripped off, that is similar to both this crash and the earlier SJ-100 heavy landing. Lightning protection is ever evolving and as said earlier new construction techniques like carbon composite are a challenge. Electronic devices (inside equipment) are also using smaller geometries and lower voltages potentially making them more vunerable. Even existing standards are subject to review and change. It used to be a 0.08" (2.0mm) aluminium alloy skin was acceptable for a integral tank wall without further analysis or protection, now you have to justify it.
These are my own opinions and may not reflect those of my employer).

Blondie2005
6th May 2019, 19:15
My OH and I dutifully take one hold bag on our annual jollies to Tenerife. Weíve only just worked out we could split it into two cabin bags and save fifty quid. Airlines financially incentivising cabin baggage in this way creates a risk. Has anyone assessed that risk properly?

alserire
6th May 2019, 19:37
ANO should be amend to state that pax attempting to retrieve, or who succeed in exiting the cabin accompanied by, cabin baggage during an emergency evacuation will be subject to criminal proceedings, which may result in a fine and/or custodial sentence.

.

Would you ever get a grip. You want to try and convict people because in a life or death situation they behave the wrong way? Were you ever in one?

I was. And I did not react in the way I thought I would. And I have never been able to work out why because my reaction was totally NOT what I would have expected of myself. And I was very, very lucky to survive it.

Some amount of bulls****ers on this thread.

OldnGrounded
6th May 2019, 19:45
ANO should be amend to state that pax attempting to retrieve, or who succeed in exiting the cabin accompanied by, cabin baggage during an emergency evacuation will be subject to criminal proceedings, which may result in a fine and/or custodial sentence.

Panicked people in an emergency are extremely unlikely to either remember such a legal threat or to pay much attention to it if they do. A pointless suggestion that ignores the reality of human behavior, IMHO.

Fortissimo
6th May 2019, 19:45
Like it or not, cabin baggage appears to have been an issue for at least some of the pax which for them turned this accident from survivable to non-survivable. This is an aspect that will be addressed by the accident investigators because they are required to do so by Annex 13.

IMO, the investigation needs to look primarily at why the approach became unstable, why the hard landing led to fuel tank rupture, and why so many pax died.

It is apparent from some of the video evidence that the hull breach from the extrenal fire occurred quite early (+50 secs?) - you can see smoke issuing from the top of the forward doors while there are still people coming down the slides - which means that those at the rear of the aircraft would have rapidly been in an unsurvivable cabin environment. There is also a 6-7 second hiatus in pax flow from the forward right slide which ends with someone carrying a large bag; that delay will have costs lives.

I am strongly of the opinion that central locking for for the overheads is the only way to go. It certainly stands more chance of success than trying to persuade airlines to stop permitting cabin baggage, which is not necessary. Once people learn the overheads will only be released once on stand, they will be less likely to try to retrieve items, and if they try they will soon be moved on. If they are not locked it only takes one person to open them before others follow suit, and that will impede the escape of those behind them, whether from the time delay or from a newly introduced trip hazard. How much more evidence do we need for change, and how many more will have to die before something is done?

Now let's add seat pitch into the mix. The FAA and EASA have refused to rule on seat pitch, the FAA claiming that the low pitches being considered (27"/608cm) would not affect someone's ability to leave their seat quickly. That is worth thinking about as an official position, because even the most cursory examination would show that you reach a physical limit at some point. And what about seating density? All exits are rated for pax flow per 90 seconds, but unless you pay to be in PE or business+ where the pax/metre equation is lowest, you are likely to be up against the limits.

meleagertoo
6th May 2019, 19:47
I fear the brave guy who went back up the slide did so to try to unblock a logjam of struggling bodies and baggage blocking the aisle. For some while before that the egress of pax had become slow and intermittent which bespeaks a difficulty reaching the door at all, and the two items that were all he managed to release that came down the slide look to me more like bags than bodies. He deserves a medal.

The industry must rapidly get to grips with the homicidally irrational behaviour of some pax on evacuation. Locking bins coulld be easily and relatively cheaply retrofitted and would completely solve the baggage problem, in the meantime well publicised prosecutions would not be misplaced at all. I think some people are being far too laissez-faire over such blatantly selfish action that any reasonable person can see is potentially hazardous.
It would only take a couple of people stumbling over bags at or before the lobby before others begin scrambling over them and you have an immovable Hillsborough type bottleneck-crush situation. I have little doubt that is what happened here. With no overwing exits anyone caught in or behind that would be inevitably condemned to death.
It simply must not be allowed to happen like that.

We'll look back at unlocked bins in 20 years time and marvel how they were ever permitted.

Sandy78
6th May 2019, 20:02
34 years since the Manchester accident, smokehoods might have helped a few of the passengers get out. Thoughts?

OldnGrounded
6th May 2019, 20:20
. . . in the meantime well publicised prosecutions would not be misplaced at all.

They would be entirely misplaced, as well as ineffective. Attempting to criminalize undesirable behavior in a life-threatening emergency is a fool's errand. What's more, any such prosecution would be unlikely in the extreme to result in conviction. Defense counsel and experts in behavioral psychology would eviscerate the prosecution and the chances of convincing jurors to convict would be negligible at best.

Airways B
6th May 2019, 20:28
Pax vid of approach to first bounce.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEs9exbTDqI

bud leon
6th May 2019, 20:33
And being just 30 seconds behind, if there had been a fire, the foam cannon would have started before they arrived. Look at the video today, foam everywhere but on the fire for at least 30 seconds.

You simply cannot on the basis of videos of the plane in the distance know what transpired with the fire fighting. If there was unburnt spilled fuel, and there probably was, a decision has to be made about smothering that with foam before getting closer to the aircraft, because what you don't want to do is park the tender in a pool of fuel which could catch fire. It is also important for the safety of evacuating passengers who can run anywhere, and who may also have been preventing closer access. Pooling fuel could also be the reason for the third tender spraying foam in areas other than on the aircraft.

As for response time, if fire crews were holding in the taxiway around the middle of the runway, and the aircraft ended up at the end of the runway, they had to travel about 2kms to get to it. Assuming an average speed of 80km/hr, which allows for accelerating and decelerating, the time to the aircraft would be 1 min 30 secs following clearance to enter the runway. If the average speed was 70km/hr, the time taken would be 1:43. And unlike the very controlled video being used for comparison, in an actual fire crews have to slow down to assess the situation and quickly decide on and coordinate a first response strategy under extreme stress. This was probably the fire crew's first real life-threatening passenger aircraft fire, and odds are it will be their last, such is the life of airport fire crews. So perhaps don't presume so much.

racedo
6th May 2019, 20:36
Changing cabin baggage standards and weights would require all airlines operating the same route to agree. It would require agreements around the world. It will not happen. The Pax want to pay less money and airlines facilitate that for them. Nothing will change - unless you can PROVE that cabin bags in evac cause MUTLIPLE deaths.

No it wouldn't. It would require FAA and EASA to state this is the position for ALL airlines flying to and from their jurisdictions.

Add in that Manufacturers retro fit a central locking system on overheads that locks when landing gear down in flight and only released after that by cabin crew at gate.

dmwalker
6th May 2019, 20:39
Sorry to add one more comment about baggage. I haven't flown for years now but I remember 30-40 years ago the size standard was enforced, at least at my local airport CYYZ. There was a metal rectangle representing the width and height of the space under the seat and, if your hand baggage couldn't pass through it, you had to check it in to the baggage hold, even directly from the departure gate. Was that not universally enforced at that time?

Sunamer
6th May 2019, 20:44
They would be entirely misplaced, as well as ineffective. Attempting to criminalize undesirable behavior in a life-threatening emergency is a fool's errand. What's more, any such prosecution would be unlikely in the extreme to result in conviction. Defense counsel and experts in behavioral psychology would eviscerate the prosecution and the chances of convincing jurors to convict would be negligible at best.

that only makes sense if you actually wanna fix something. Russians give rats arse about improving things. It is much easier to actually put someone in jail or give someone a medal, rather than investigate. Also, the problem with investigations is that it requires action after. Which means - a lot of changes and enforcement, which Russians do not like.
They will forget about this event, just like they forgot about children that died due to lack of actions of fire crews (coincidentally, well, not really) when a mall burnt down completely in Kemerovo about a year ago... 60 people died, including 37 children.

Herod
6th May 2019, 20:47
That's one heck of a bounce. How about a go-around, followed very quickly by a change of mind?

rab-k
6th May 2019, 20:50
They would be entirely misplaced, as well as ineffective. Attempting to criminalize undesirable behavior in a life-threatening emergency is a fool's errand. What's more, any such prosecution would be unlikely in the extreme to result in conviction. Defense counsel and experts in behavioral psychology would eviscerate the prosecution and the chances of convincing jurors to convict would be negligible at best.
Disagree entirely. Prospect of 5000 £/Ä/$ fine and/or 5 years in clink, even if it were to deter just one individual would be worth it IMHO.

A Squared
6th May 2019, 21:08
Sorry to add one more comment about baggage. I haven't flown for years now but I remember 30-40 years ago the size standard was enforced, at least at my local airport CYYZ. There was a metal rectangle representing the width and height of the space under the seat and, if your hand baggage couldn't pass through it, you had to check it in to the baggage hold, even directly from the departure gate. Was that not universally enforced at that time?

It is still fairly common to see those devices in airports. It's pretty uncommon to see them used. The only time I have seen them used in the last decade was by Qantas. I used to fly to Australia out of LAX fairly frequently, either on Qantas, or an a Delta flight that departed about the same time as the Qantas flight from an adjacent gate. They had a size gauge mounted on a scale. One of the gate agents would scan the boarding queue, and if the carry-on looked a bit large (and most do in the US) they would make the passenger fall out and put it in the size gauge. If it didn't fit or was overweight, they had to check it. I would stand there silently applauding.

A Squared
6th May 2019, 21:11
the only way to make a lot of connecting flights is to use the overhead.


Complete BS. I fly internationally on 4 leg itineraries regularly. It is entirely possible to check baggage and have it make all your flights.

atakacs
6th May 2019, 21:17
the approach seems relatively uneventful as far as it can be judged by in-flight recording but I agree that the bounce is pretty severe. Difficult to form an opinion until de FDR data becomes available.

fox niner
6th May 2019, 21:22
the approach seems relatively uneventful as far as it can be judged by in-flight recording but I agree that the bounce is pretty severe. Difficult to form an opinion until de FDR data becomes available.

Avherald is now reporting that there were in fact FOUR bounces.

Matt48
6th May 2019, 21:22
That's one heck of a bounce. How about a go-around, followed very quickly by a change of mind?

Was that the ' second landing attempt' ??

NiallG
6th May 2019, 21:29
The British Airtours flight that had a somewhat similar evacuation issue shows some interesting results when survivor seat locations are calculated as shown on the Wiki page for thes flight BA 28M. An analysis afterwards appeared to show that some people were frozen in their seats while some clambered over the backs of seats and pushed their way out.

Some people 8, 9 and 10 rows behind the over wing exits managed to get out OK whereas some people just two rows away did not. It was suggested at the time that some people had a "survival at any cost" reaction.... which just goes to support what you are saying, one never knows how one might react in such a situation

vanHorck
6th May 2019, 21:30
Pax vid of approach to first bounce.


So a stable approach but at a somewhat higher speed than normal? At least it is to my eye. No PA sounds, no calling for "brace, brace", in other words the crew expected a "normal" precautionary landing following a loss of some power?
That was a very hard touchdown indeed!
Does the video suggest a botched landing due to being forced to land in an uncomfortable "mode", with the prior issues (lightening strike?) only a secondary contributing factor?

ThreeThreeMike
6th May 2019, 21:38
This video posted by the Guardian appears to show (at least to me) the engines were producing significant thrust as the aircraft traveled down the runway on fire. I wonder if the PF engaged TOGA after the first bounce. The view starts at 0:15.

There's also a brief shot in the video that appears to show part of the left MLG punched through the wing.

https://youtu.be/WmvcoAPLeuA

rab-k
6th May 2019, 21:41
That was a very hard touchdown indeed!


Overweight?

BristolScout
6th May 2019, 21:42
Since this thread started, hundreds of thousands of passengers have flown and arrived safely with their cabin bags. There's an old saying that hard cases make bad law. Jumping around demanding changes to baggage configuration on the basis of one accident is not rational in the hard-headed world of commercial aviation. One could equally argue that rear-facing seats would similarly improve survival statistics - that's not going to happen either. As ever, the times of maximum danger for SLF are the journeys to and from the airport. Life's a risky old business.

thcrozier
6th May 2019, 21:43
I havenít read the entire thread because of the carry-on (or should I say carrion) warriors. One question: Is the main gear somewhere behind the wreckage or still attached to the plane?

yanrair
6th May 2019, 22:09
Boeing and Airbus main wheels are designed to detach and not penetrate fuel tanks, if overloaded or stressed beyond limits.

Do Sukhoi have similar design??



Not so Bar
Ryanair at CIA and BA 777 at LHR both had U/C through wings

lomapaseo
6th May 2019, 22:25
Look at the pictures for signs of the gear through the fuel tanks in the wings

ThreeThreeMike
6th May 2019, 22:49
Look at the pictures for signs of the gear through the fuel tanks in the wings

I looked at the video I linked above several more times, and the MLG is clearly through the left wing. View at 0:47.
​​​

sb_sfo
6th May 2019, 22:51
Originally Posted by dmwalker https://www.pprune.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (https://www.pprune.org/showthread.php?p=10464870#post10464870)
Sorry to add one more comment about baggage. I haven't flown for years now but I remember 30-40 years ago the size standard was enforced, at least at my local airport CYYZ. There was a metal rectangle representing the width and height of the space under the seat and, if your hand baggage couldn't pass through it, you had to check it in to the baggage hold, even directly from the departure gate. Was that not universally enforced at that time?

dmwalker, Your experience was before they started stuffing IFE seat boxes under the seats, which ate up most of the free space.

suninmyeyes
6th May 2019, 22:56
Sandy78 wrote 34 years since the Manchester accident, smokehoods might have helped a few of the passengers get out. Thoughts?

Itís a fair question. However in the Moscow accident some of those who got out might not have got out if they had stopped to put on smoke hoods. If you have ever had to put on a smoke hood and go through a smoke filled mock up fuselage it is a pretty unpleasant experience. Wearing a smoke mask is very claustrophobic, limits your vision and can induce panic in some people. In most cases you would be better off to keep low to the floor without a smoke hood and make a dash for it. I doubt the people in the back of that Superjet would have survived even if they had been wearing smoke hoods.

cooperplace
6th May 2019, 22:59
I've posted this suggestion before: education of passengers could help. A slick animated movie could show: (i) everyone smoothly & quickly evacuating, no-one pausing for luggage, and the cabin being consumed with flames just as the last person leaves, and in contrast (ii) lots of people pausing to wrestle with heavy carry-on, and the last 41 stick figures are trapped in the flames. If this was included in every safety video, people might learn. There should also be advice to keep your passport, wallet, valuable personal papers, etc, on your person.

Also, airlines and/or aircraft manufacturers could simulate actual evacuations, with real people, in the above two scenarios, and publish the difference in evacuation time. Once people realize that their self-interest depends on leaving carry-on behind, they will get the message.

Ranger One
6th May 2019, 23:02
I'll make just one observation at this stage, pertinent to the evac.

A 'landing' hard enough to punch the MLG legs through the wings, and compromise the tanks, may very well have left some pax, especially in the rear of the aircraft, sufficiently injured or concussed as to be incapable of prompt self-evacuation. Or at least it wouldn't surprise me if this proves to be a factor, once investigated.

apatity2
6th May 2019, 23:04
Here in Russia we have it live on the tv now. They are discussing it with some experts present. They just played a phone interview with the PIC of that flight. According to him the fire started only after landing. Also, there was a lightning strike that somehow had an effect on the equipment, namely: radio intermitten, the controls switched to direct law... The experts commented on the direct law that the pilots had to manually fly very sensitive controls: pedals, joystick, trim i.e. pitch, roll, yaw.

Now, normally anyone (meaning pilots) would "take a break" and go away flying some circles to catch up and digest, get used to the controls, rehears the landing, regroup, take some breath, also burn some fuel and do the checklists- and pilots are all trained to do that and it is only natural to them (all human kind)...

Unless one is stuck in IMC with a dodgy panel especially in bumpy TS weather ride. Or glitchy navigation computer and unreliable comms in the super busy Moscow airspace and no ground in sight. Or the signs that conditions getting worse and crew suspicions (the arse feeling) provoked by electric fire smell (from the lightning), structural hit (one of the experts also remembered from the past a lightning severed the wing tip on one of the flights and burned the radar dome on another flight, and they did not know that until got on the ground). Any of this would mandate pilot to land without a delay, as the latter is considered (in all pilot books I read) more deadly than overspeed/overweight. So they must had these reasons, unfortunately they did not include that from the PIC.

So they bounced it, who didn't? They had too many balls to juggle (we already know) and had to drop some.

My main questions: was there anything else we don't know that made them out of time and if the gear can be stronger?

lomapaseo
6th May 2019, 23:53
I'll make just one observation at this stage, pertinent to the evac.

A 'landing' hard enough to punch the MLG legs through the wings, and compromise the tanks, may very well have left some pax, especially in the rear of the aircraft, sufficiently injured or concussed as to be incapable of prompt self-evacuation. Or at least it wouldn't surprise me if this proves to be a factor, once investigated.

It would seem that those directly over the wing box would receive the sharpest jolt.

The passengers in the aft are affected more by the wind driven fire and any breech either as a burn-though or an open door letting the smoke in.

To me it's a survivable event in G loads and if you egress before the fire burns through or somebody opens a door and lets the smoke and fire inside

2unlimited
6th May 2019, 23:57
I am more concerned why the crew did not initiate a Go Around after the initial bounce. It does seem the aircraft was capable of flying from the videos we have seen.

tdracer
7th May 2019, 00:16
Lightning protection is ever evolving and as said earlier new construction techniques like carbon composite are a challenge. Electronic devices (inside equipment) are also using smaller geometries and lower voltages potentially making them more vulnerable. Even existing standards are subject to review and change.
The acceptable lightning voltage transients that must be accounted for (and tested) are different for carbon composite - the 787 had to meet (IIRC) 2/3rd higher induced voltage transients than for a conventional aluminum airframe. The size or type of electronic device is immaterial - it needs to be tested and demonstrate it can withstand the appropriate lightning transients - this applies to every critical and essential system on the aircraft. Otherwise it shouldn't be on the aircraft.
So my original point stands - If a lightning strike caused multiple systems to fail, making the aircraft dangerously difficult to fly and land, it's critically important that we know why. Because it either means the requirements are wrong, the testing was wrong, or the implementation was wrong. If was the implementation, it points to a problem with Sukhoi and the Superjet. If it was the way it was tested, we need to refine the testing standards (and make sure they are complied with). If it's the requirements, we have a big problem that could potentially impact thousands of aircraft and the industry as a whole.
Honest question, does the Superjet use significant carbon composite structure? I thought it was fairly conventional aluminum construction.

visibility3miles
7th May 2019, 00:49
It is possible the people in the front of the plane didn't look aft once the plane headed back to its starting point.

If the fire started on landing after a fuel tank was ruptured, the people in front probably didn't have a clue about the seriousness of the situation.

They may have been locked into the mindset of, "Let me grab my bags as we prepare to get off."

Yes, in this case such delays undoubtably cost lives, but it seems like passengers were streaming out of the front exits as soon as possible.

Passengers DO NOT train for this. The safety briefing never says, "Flee for your lives at all costs!"

Doing so would lead to panic, which is worse.

etrang
7th May 2019, 01:15
ANO should be amend to state that pax attempting to retrieve, or who succeed in exiting the cabin accompanied by, cabin baggage during an emergency evacuation will be subject to criminal proceedings, which may result in a fine and/or custodial sentence.

If I had a loved one perish in such circumstances, and saw footage of at least one individual lumbering across the tarmac with a bag which appeared to be of max weight/dimensions, as can be seen the footage of this incident, I'd be looking to "have words".

This would make absolutely no difference at all to people's behavior in an emergency. 99.9% of pax have no idea what the laws governing air travel are. Punishing someone after the event may make you feel better but will have absolutely no chance of saving lives.