Sheremetyevo Superjet 100 in flames
Join Date: May 2009
Location: sfo
Age: 70
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by dmwalker 
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 274
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sandy78 wrote
It’s 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.
34 years since the Manchester accident, smokehoods might have helped a few of the passengers get out. Thoughts?
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.
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.
Last edited by cooperplace; 7th May 2019 at 00:06.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Mk. 1 desk at present...
Posts: 365
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: May 2019
Location: uk
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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".
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".
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: in the shadows
Age: 48
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There have been so many evacuations delayed due to passengers grabbing their overhad luggage in which by pure luck everyone survived. Many have warned for years that this is a disaster waiting to happen. Now we've had the disaster and people start saying "but it's just one case".
The logic behind that is: For years we've made the experience that overhead luggage is a safety threat in evacuations, but people always said, well it's just a theoretical threat because so far nothing really bad has happened. Now we've had the really bad thing happening, but people say, well it's just one case. How many such cases do we need? When it's happened a hundred times, people will say, why bother, we're used to it?
N4790P
Overhead baggage 'rules' exist. Problem is the airlines don't adhere to them (they want minimal check in bags to minimise turnarounds etc..) and thus neither do the pax. The maximum size and weight are nearly always displayed at check in and at the gate, yet rarely are the large wheelies challenged.
The airlines can stop this issue very easily should they so desire.
The airlines can stop this issue very easily should they so desire.
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Boston
Age: 60
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Video showing entire landing. Starts at about 9 seconds in on far right of screen. Seems to show many more bounces.
Last edited by Blade Master; 7th May 2019 at 03:18.
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Eagles Nest
Posts: 485
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If a single airline clamps down on oversize cabin baggage they will have a %10 drop in business the following week as people take their trolley bag to the next cheapest LCC who has not clamped down .
Airport authority employed security with appropriate attitude, size and weigh every carry on bag at gate . Take it out of hands of airline .
Airport authority employed security with appropriate attitude, size and weigh every carry on bag at gate . Take it out of hands of airline .
Why not compulsorily destroy any luggage which people take out with them in these emergency situations? That way, the people who have enough wits to know what they are doing will leave their luggage alone in the hope of getting it back later and the people who are scared witless will be punished leniently.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: HK
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would agree with that if it were true.
There have been so many evacuations delayed due to passengers grabbing their overhad luggage in which by pure luck everyone survived. Many have warned for years that this is a disaster waiting to happen. Now we've had the disaster and people start saying "but it's just one case".
The logic behind that is: For years we've made the experience that overhead luggage is a safety threat in evacuations, but people always said, well it's just a theoretical threat because so far nothing really bad has happened. Now we've had the really bad thing happening, but people say, well it's just one case. How many such cases do we need? When it's happened a hundred times, people will say, why bother, we're used to it?
There have been so many evacuations delayed due to passengers grabbing their overhad luggage in which by pure luck everyone survived. Many have warned for years that this is a disaster waiting to happen. Now we've had the disaster and people start saying "but it's just one case".
The logic behind that is: For years we've made the experience that overhead luggage is a safety threat in evacuations, but people always said, well it's just a theoretical threat because so far nothing really bad has happened. Now we've had the really bad thing happening, but people say, well it's just one case. How many such cases do we need? When it's happened a hundred times, people will say, why bother, we're used to it?
I would suggest that all airlines be required to fit an emergency overhead luggage locking system to prevent evacuating passengers accessing the lockers and fatally delaying emergency exit.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Connecticut, USA
Age: 64
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
The flight deck door opens outward into the passenger cabin and so would be blocked had a person collapsed...
mjb
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
They couldn't care less about a slick animated video. They only care about themselves. And it is not tunnel vision, it is selfishness.
As a pax last night, I watched a Chinese woman climb over the 2 passengers beside her to then push her way through the crowded isle to get to the front and get off the plane. Only to be waiting at the top of the aerobridge for her friends. Just fuc&?ing RUDE!
So in an emergency, as long as SHE gets her luggage, that is all that will matter.
LOCK THE OVERHEAD BINS.
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Chicago
Age: 66
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This story also teases "pilots without proper qualifications" as a cause, but gives no detail.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ane-crash.html
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ane-crash.html