A Sukhoi superjet 100 is missing

[vovachan]

SSJ 100 deviated from its flight path before disappearing from radar

[Kulverstukas]

vovachan, it's very second hand information - TASS correspondent quoted Jakarta Post which quoted tempo.co which quoted "PT Angkasa Pura’s deputy senior general manager Mulya Abdi ... as saying that the Russian airplane circled above the Atang Sanjaya airbase, located 12 kilometers from Mt. Salak, West Java on Wednesday before it deviated from its flight path."

[ap08]

Hold your horses here!

These pictures depict the traditional ceremony of crossing the equator for the first time. This is no doubt in cruise and has absolutely nothing to do with the accident. It is an ancient maritime and aviation tradition.

Finally the reason of this incident becomes clear. It is very wrong to perform a ritual dedicated to the God of Sea while flying. Obviously, they angered the Gods of Air, with dire consequences for themselves.

[jolihokistix]

This footage clarifies what they have and have not found as of Wed 16th May:
BBC News - Indonesia finds black box part of crashed Russia jet

[hetfield]

How do "Indonesian Officials" know, the recorder isn't a combination of FDR and CVR?

They both look the same as already mentioned by archae86.

http://www.l-3ar.com/PDF_Files/MKT047_FA2100CVDR.pdf
http://www.l-3ar.com/PDF_Files/MKT048_FA2100CVR.pdf

[Bill Bader]

I think Mr. mxgyvr81's #316 post offers the most likely explanation so far. (I've followed this from the first day and read all the posts.)

The suggestions of testing the plane: I really doubt a sales demo would be combined with any tests that put people in harm's way. I can't see that.

Same with scenic tours. We who reside here in British Columbia wouldn't wish a scenic tour in doubtful weather up through a mountain ravine we couldn't properly see anyway. Residents know these places are dangerous, even on sunny days. A mountain's history of danger rarely invites us to fly close.

A number of posts here suggest the rhetorical question, "How could they have risked their lives for a scenic tour?" and I'm thinking the answer is that they never did. I think something went wrong, and pilot error was limited, as mxgyvr81 posits.

Maybe I'm just not in the mood quite yet for another Concordia, but I don't buy testing or scenic touring (outside of simply circling the mountain and heading back home; as per "whaddaya think? Wanna buy a few planes?").

[GroundProxGuy]

btw, does the terrain avoidance system have any predictive capability in a turn?

Yes, according to T2CAS website: TAWS+ Terrain Awareness Warning System, it states "Turn extrapolation (detects and alerts pilot to high terrain in a turn) = Yes"

Of course, TAWS requires a position input that is accurate and a loaded database that is accurate, otherwise is apples-oranges.

[liider]

Now published that Superjet 97005 was changed for 97004 while on roadshow in Pakistan.

Sergey Dolya says they were told, that the plane was changed, because 97005 should have returned to Moscow for certification purposes, but now it is confirmed it had problems with the engine.

It is also seen on pictures by Dolya during the landing in Karachi:

[overthewing]

Does it seem a bit strange that both black boxes weren't found fairly quickly once the SAR forces were on the spot? I would have thought they would both be transmitting their position?

[Kulverstukas]

Does it seem a bit strange that both black boxes weren't found fairly quickly once the SAR forces were on the spot?

Not so, if you imagine what "on the spot" mean at almost vertical cliff 2000 m high and covered with thick thropical forest. Just note that at the reports was said, for example: "rescuers moved another 200 m down on the ropes".

[lomapaseo]

overthewing

Does it seem a bit strange that both black boxes weren't found fairly quickly once the SAR forces were on the spot? I would have thought they would both be transmitting their position?

Here's your explanation

find the cat and you can hear its bell going off as well

[gums]

@ GroundProx

I can't find a ref to the advanced GPWS that was installed on the jet. Maybe it had the basic "vertical" look and a map and GPS.

Would seem to me that even flying manually and semi-VFR that such a system you referenced would have saved the day.

I can only relate to my own experience in military systems. Our terrain following feature was very helpful in marginal weather, and we had a "cross-scan" mode that showed all terrain above you and also provided vertical steering for the stuff in front. later systems looked "into the turn" for the vertical steering. It made very low-level flying comfortable.

Flying into a vertical cliff without a forward-looking system seems what happened, unless something happened to distract the crew. By the time you get the "pull up" warning it is too late.

This is a very sad incident, and my heart goes out to all the innocent folks. I shall not forgive the crew unless something is revealed that the jet had a problem.

[henra]

Originally Posted by Bill Bader

I think Mr. mxgyvr81's #316 post offers the most likely explanation so far.

Generally I tend to agree.
The only thing that worries me is that this would require a really horrendous visibility in order not to see the ridge on the left side.
The canyon ist not that wide (<1/2 mile). Assuming a speed of 200kts and the fact that they would pull max a 2G turn (probably even less) would bring them beyond the middle of the canyon when completing the turn into the canyon. (a = v^2 /r => R = v^2/ (2*9,81m/s) => Turn Radius R = 540 m = 1/3 mile.
That means they wouldn't have been able to see the left ridge being less that a 1/4 mile away.
That iwould be a really horrendous visibility to fly VFR close to mountaineous terrain in general.
On the other hand such a limited visibility would explain why they couldn't escape by climbing and leaving through the lowest part of the ridge on the right side.
I hope we will ever get the information what really made them enter this canyon.
Deliberately or accidentally !?

[aterpster]

It always bothers me so much when a human face is placed on a terrible crash like this. I presume some of the people in those high res photos perished in this crash.

Awful.

[Razoray]

The photos we see are from the 1st flight of the day, so these are not the passengers that perished. Obviously the Russian pilots and crew went down in the crash. As far as the Sky Airlines cabin crew, not sure if they were on both flights.
In some respects, the human face put on this crash may do more too help solve what happened and prevent similar incidents in the future.
Yes, it is very sad, but the impact on the flying public, especially here in Indonesia can help improve safety And awareness in the near future.

[Annex14]

post #316

Just checked for an update to come on Mr. Soejatman´s site and found this link:
http://gerryairways.********.co.uk/2...deadly_17.html
The update shows some more detail that might be correct - probably as correct as the suggestion of mxgyvr81´s post # 316.
I have mentioned before that the ideas behind that post could be THE explanation, but must admit that Mr. Soejatman´s theory of an innocent descend to an unsafe altitude might be correct as well. I am tending more towards the latter possibility.
The big question would be, wether or not it is possible to get over or along the eastern canyon walls in such an innocent turning descend. Checking on Google Maps -Terrain set up - and following the 2000 m line = 6000 ft. it appears possible. Probably creating a "first impact" position, such was reported earlier. Though it wasn´t confirmed yet by finding any parts or ground or tree marks, there are position pins visible on those early "rescue centre" pictures that show a crash site position on the eastern wall too ??
Another question in that context is the reported last Radar contact position. It is depicted as to be on the southern side of Mt. Salak - opposite to the canyon !! If this observation is correct - I mean correct observed and depicted at the right map position - it couldn´t be taken as a hint to the crash it self. It could be as simple as a Radar shadow created by the mountain.
If however that would be the case and mxgyvr81´s drawing of the assumed flight path are correct, the Radar signal should have been re-aquired again on the western and northern side of the mountain, to show the flight path circling the peak untill the crash. There is no hint or bit of information about such a re-aquired Radar track.
That leads me to the conclusion that the last Radar positon - by memory - was depicted at the wrong position and shows the last return prior impact, north of the highest peak of Mt. Salak at that infamous ridge, thus confirming Mr. Soejatman´s theories.

[Annex14]

Link

the link wouldn´t work, also after several attempts so use the the link posted by
Road_Hog - post # 337

[ATC Watcher]

Henra :

The canyon ist not that wide (<1/2 mile). Assuming a speed of 200kts and the fact that they would pull max a 2G turn (probably even less) would bring them beyond the middle of the canyon when completing the turn into the canyon. (a = v^2 /r => R = v^2/ (2*9,81m/s) => Turn Radius R = 540 m = 1/3 mile.

This is wonderful in theory. I know only a tiny little bit about mountain flying, but one thing I have learned is that you do not get inside a 1/2 mile canyon below the ridges, and if you do then you stay on the sunny side, opposite to where the winds comes from and you slow down . There you might have a chance to make a 180 if the end is blocked, If you stay in the middle or on the others side , your turn will be far wider and part of it will be inside the downdraft.
As the Ziegler brothers former bosses of Air Alpes used to say : "it is far easier to teach to fly to a guy that know mountains , than to teach the mountains to an experienced pilot "

[Road_Hog]

Originally Posted by annex14

the link wouldn´t work, also after several attempts so use the the link posted by
Road_Hog - post # 337
Jo

That link is to part one of the article, which is worth a read.

This is the link to part two put online today.

I haven't had time to go through it yet, so I can't comment as to the quality of it,

Once again copy and paste it (copy from right to left), don't click on it.

http://gerryairways.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/ssj-100-descent-innocent-but-deadly_17.html

You should read part one if you have not already read it. There is a link to it in the preface of part two.

[henra]

Originally Posted by ATC Watcher

There you might have a chance to make a 180 if the end is blocked, If you stay in the middle or on the others side , your turn will be far wider and part of it will be inside the downdraft.

Honestly I don't think they ever planned executing a 180 inside the canyon. even if flying close to one ridge it would be really unlikely you could do that with an airliner in a halfmile wide canyon.

And that is what puzzles me.
Let's have a look at the options:

1) Turning too early
Maybe they wanted to fly along the outside of the mountain and turned too early as per mcgyver81's theory (which really has some merit to it).
=> That would require that they couldn't see the left ridge of the canyon. That was the aspect I was referring too with my rough calculation of the turn radius. Conclusion: a normal turn would have brought them as close as a quarter mile to the left canyon wall.
They apparently flew FL2000 which is 1800m (impact at ~1850m) and thus ~200m below long parts of the left ridge which itself is slightly higher than the right ridge. So they would have to be able to see the right ridge to skim along but not the higher and probably closer left ridge. Still absolutely possible depending on local weather phenomena.

1a) Turning too early without continuous sight of the mountains
They just saw the right 'entry corner' of the canyon briefly, took it as a reference point and started turning into a direction which would lead them alongside the mountain range without seeing the right ridge after that or seeing it only intermittedly.

2) Deliberate 'canyoning'.
Requires less technical violation of Occam's razor (see explanation above) but seems so much more irresponsible to do that in an airliner in a mountaineous area with which you are not familliar that it might be less probable than the first option despite requiring less assumptions.

3) completely blind and unaware turning into the canyon thinking they are clear of the mountains.
=> Quite improbable, as that would be a hell of a coincidence not hitting any ridge prior to impact.

Did I overlook any other option?