Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

Sheremetyevo Superjet 100 in flames

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

Sheremetyevo Superjet 100 in flames

Old 6th May 2019, 23:51
  #241 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: sfo
Age: 66
Posts: 297
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.
sb_sfo is offline  
Old 6th May 2019, 23:56
  #242 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 255
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.
suninmyeyes is offline  
Old 6th May 2019, 23:59
  #243 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: down under
Posts: 391
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.

Last edited by cooperplace; 7th May 2019 at 01:06.
cooperplace is offline  
Old 7th May 2019, 00:02
  #244 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Mk. 1 desk at present...
Posts: 360
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.
Ranger One is offline  
Old 7th May 2019, 00:04
  #245 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2019
Location: uk
Posts: 5
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?
apatity2 is offline  
Old 7th May 2019, 00:53
  #246 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 5,169
Originally Posted by Ranger One View Post
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
lomapaseo is offline  
Old 7th May 2019, 00:57
  #247 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1,333
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.
2unlimited is offline  
Old 7th May 2019, 01:16
  #248 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Everett, WA
Age: 64
Posts: 2,453
Originally Posted by Thruster763 View Post
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.
tdracer is online now  
Old 7th May 2019, 01:49
  #249 (permalink)  
See and avoid
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 487
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.
visibility3miles is offline  
Old 7th May 2019, 02:15
  #250 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Planet Earth, mostly
Posts: 438
Originally Posted by rab-k View Post
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.
etrang is offline  
Old 7th May 2019, 02:26
  #251 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: in the shadows
Age: 44
Posts: 36
Originally Posted by BristolScout View Post
demanding changes to baggage configuration on the basis of one accident is not rational
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?
anotheruser is offline  
Old 7th May 2019, 02:46
  #252 (permalink)  
ZFT
N4790P
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Asia
Age: 69
Posts: 1,947
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.
ZFT is online now  
Old 7th May 2019, 03:26
  #253 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Boston
Age: 55
Posts: 12
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 04:18.
Blade Master is offline  
Old 7th May 2019, 03:50
  #254 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Eagles Nest
Posts: 439
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 .
Toruk Macto is online now  
Old 7th May 2019, 04:00
  #255 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The Wild West (UK)
Age: 41
Posts: 1,146
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.
abgd is offline  
Old 7th May 2019, 04:28
  #256 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: HK
Posts: 30
Originally Posted by anotheruser View Post
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?
Surely over the decades there has been enough wailing and gnashing of teeth over this and the airline industry needs to get a grip.

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.
GunpowderPlod is offline  
Old 7th May 2019, 04:51
  #257 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Connecticut, USA
Age: 60
Posts: 236
Originally Posted by 2unlimited View Post
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.
If the first bounce poked a hole in the fuel tanks and started a leak, would trying to go around have made things worse (would it have caught fire in the air, rather than on the ground)?

jugofpropwash is online now  
Old 7th May 2019, 04:53
  #258 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: UK/OZ
Posts: 1,682
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
This could explain why flight crew used the cockpit window rather than flight deck door.
The flight deck door opens outward into the passenger cabin and so would be blocked had a person collapsed...
​​​​​​​
mjb
mickjoebill is offline  
Old 7th May 2019, 05:21
  #259 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Taipei
Posts: 27
Originally Posted by cooperplace View Post
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.
You have obviously never worked in Asia, (China & India) in particular.
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.
TPE Flyer is offline  
Old 7th May 2019, 05:59
  #260 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Chicago
Age: 61
Posts: 32
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
SquintyMagoo is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.