Sheremetyevo Superjet 100 in flames
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Connecticut, USA
Age: 64
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Southwest allows for 2 free bags apparently it works financially for them?
Perhaps the overhead storage needs to be done away with, and passengers need to be convinced that it's a perk, rather than an inconvenience. Surely it would be much faster going thru security if people were limited to a purse/briefcase/laptop carrier that would fit under their seat, rather than hauling big heavily packed wheelies that need to be carefully scanned? Safety would be enhanced, not only in an accident, but from the perspective of someone sneaking something on board.
Yes, you're right. It's unbelievable. I'm outraged.
Oh wait, what are these?
Er, right...
Pretty much was was on the SJ 100 and does the same thing...
More info here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Static_discharger
Mind you, a big litghning strike won't bleed off and away through the statics.
Oh wait, what are these?
Er, right...
Pretty much was was on the SJ 100 and does the same thing...
More info here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Static_discharger
Mind you, a big litghning strike won't bleed off and away through the statics.
Apples and bananas....
Join Date: May 2019
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Native Russian speaker, not a pilot, so please forgive my ignorance of standard operating procedures and terminology.
RBC, which is kind of like the CNBC of Russia is reporting that the pilots failed to turn off the engines after the landing. They were on the whole time until the firetrucks put them out. As to why the firetrucks were not deployed, earlier - perhaps this is noteworthy. Baza.io has the transcript of comms between the pilots an tower. While the pilots declared pan-pan, they said that they did not require assistance. Here's the crucial bit:
Translation:
There's a seating chart out there which i'm not allowed to post. You can find it by going to the site pikabu which one user posted earlier and it's in the comments there. On the left side of the plane, some people survived - 13B, 15B, 18A. Everyone else in rows 13 thru 20 perished. Row 11 all gone too.
The passenger in 18A apparently bolted to the exit after the first bounce.
My own observation - flight attendants always say that in case of emergency, head for the nearest exit. Clearly, that was the wrong move for anyone at the back of the plane, and heading towards the front would have been the correct survival strategy. I wonder if any passengers at the back were confused whether to move to the front or follow the traditional guidelines. It was a very quickly developing situation.
RBC, which is kind of like the CNBC of Russia is reporting that the pilots failed to turn off the engines after the landing. They were on the whole time until the firetrucks put them out. As to why the firetrucks were not deployed, earlier - perhaps this is noteworthy. Baza.io has the transcript of comms between the pilots an tower. While the pilots declared pan-pan, they said that they did not require assistance. Here's the crucial bit:
Диспетчер: Аэрофлот 1492. Справа курс 160. Какая-нибудь помощь необходима будет?
КВС: Справа 160. Нет, пока всё нормально. Штатно. Аэрофлот 1492.
Диспетчер: Только проблемы со связью, вас правильно понял?
КВС: Связь и потеря автоматического управления самолётом.
Диспетчер: Вас понял.
КВС: Справа 160. Нет, пока всё нормально. Штатно. Аэрофлот 1492.
Диспетчер: Только проблемы со связью, вас правильно понял?
КВС: Связь и потеря автоматического управления самолётом.
Диспетчер: Вас понял.
Dispatch: Aeroflot 1492. Right heading 160. Will any help be required?
Captain: Right 160. No, everything is fine at the moment. Ordinary. Aeroflot 1492.
Dispatch: Only problems with communications, do I understand correctly?
Captain: Communications and the loss of automatic controls.
Dispatch: Understood.
Captain: Right 160. No, everything is fine at the moment. Ordinary. Aeroflot 1492.
Dispatch: Only problems with communications, do I understand correctly?
Captain: Communications and the loss of automatic controls.
Dispatch: Understood.
The passenger in 18A apparently bolted to the exit after the first bounce.
My own observation - flight attendants always say that in case of emergency, head for the nearest exit. Clearly, that was the wrong move for anyone at the back of the plane, and heading towards the front would have been the correct survival strategy. I wonder if any passengers at the back were confused whether to move to the front or follow the traditional guidelines. It was a very quickly developing situation.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: timbuktu
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps the overhead storage needs to be done away with, and passengers need to be convinced that it's a perk, rather than an inconvenience. Surely it would be much faster going thru security if people were limited to a purse/briefcase/laptop carrier that would fit under their seat, rather than hauling big heavily packed wheelies that need to be carefully scanned? Safety would be enhanced, not only in an accident, but from the perspective of someone sneaking something on board.
My own observation - flight attendants always say that in case of emergency, head for the nearest exit. Clearly, that was the wrong move for anyone at the back of the plane, and heading towards the front would have been the correct survival strategy. I wonder if any passengers at the back were confused whether to move to the front or follow the traditional guidelines. It was a very quickly developing situation.
...question of whether the strip lighting on the aisle floor designed to guide passengers to the exit would only come on in an emergency to guide passengers to emergency exits that had been opened or whether it all comes on together...
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Cape Town, ZA
Age: 62
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The number of cabin crew, and their seat locations, relative to both the passengers and the exits, is critical in "marshaling" during a chaotic evacuation. Many lessons were learned from the Manchester disaster, though the location of the fire, and exit configuration were somewhat different: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britis...t_28M#Accident
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Oslo, Norway
Posts: 189
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by ph-sbe
I hate to say it, but yes, in most jurisdictions you can indeed take any action to save your life in a life threatening emergency. Including punching your way through the aircraft to get off. It obviously depends on the circumstances, but most criminal codes have provisions for emergencies, similar to "declare an emergency and you own the sky".
Don't get me wrong, there is a big difference between the moral and legal side of things. You're on a burning airplane and only one person can get out. Will you jump to safety or will you let a little girl make the jump? Sure, most people will sacrifice themselves to save the little girl and have a high school named after them, but can you really criminally convict someone who chose to live themselves?
Don't get me wrong, there is a big difference between the moral and legal side of things. You're on a burning airplane and only one person can get out. Will you jump to safety or will you let a little girl make the jump? Sure, most people will sacrifice themselves to save the little girl and have a high school named after them, but can you really criminally convict someone who chose to live themselves?
No idea why my post was deleted, mods?
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: London
Age: 64
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another passenger video ...
https://www.liveleak.com/view?t=aOnbL_1557230227
https://www.liveleak.com/view?t=aOnbL_1557230227
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Germany
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://avherald.com/img/aeroflot_su9...w_190505_4.jpg
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Korea
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If any airline were to start flying without seatbelts, they would surely gain at least a 10% added revenue; not only from the savings in equipment and weight, but also adding to increased interest from the flying Joe public, to whom the standard safety measures clearly constitute a nuisance. And yet, not even the cheapest of LOCOs have used this strategy, and apparently no major airline whatsoever since about nearly 100 years. So it works to require a measure of added safety, even if it appears unpopular, to the airline and the populace. If it is a matter of "well, it makes sense to use a seatbelt, because in an extraordinary circumstance, it may prevent injury to yourself and other passengers and crew (in case of hitting the ceiling and get tossed onto someone else)". Why then is it constantly said in this and other similar threads that the same will never work for restrictions on the size of carry on luggage, even though the precise same reasoning (apart from the ceiling thing) applies? Oh, you say that there is a SARP that covers the seatbelt rule, so that airlines are forced to obey it, but there is no SARP for huge chunks of in-cabin baggage. The Standard And Recommended Practices of the Chicago Convention are actually subject to amendments. So would that not be the right place to start?
There is a very lengthy discussion about evacuation procedures in the link posted earlier: https://www.aerosociety.com/media/85...anes-paper.pdf
The number of cabin crew, and their seat locations, relative to both the passengers and the exits, is critical in "marshaling" during a chaotic evacuation. Many lessons were learned from the Manchester disaster, though the location of the fire, and exit configuration were somewhat different: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britis...t_28M#Accident
The number of cabin crew, and their seat locations, relative to both the passengers and the exits, is critical in "marshaling" during a chaotic evacuation. Many lessons were learned from the Manchester disaster, though the location of the fire, and exit configuration were somewhat different: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britis...t_28M#Accident
Last edited by Ripton; 8th May 2019 at 16:11. Reason: Thanks to Argonix for pointing out the mistake in my original edit.
Join Date: Feb 2019
Location: MOW
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Drain Bamaged
One pax said (can't find the quote anymore, it is buried here somewhere) "That people leaving with carry on weren't an issue during this evacuation.
According to him it didn't slow down people."
What did is Furnace and heavy smoke. People in the back had no chances unless they bolted from their seat going forward, before even the aircraft came to rest.
So can we give a rest with this luggage issue in this topic!? Or just start another one specific to it.
Pegase Driver
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 73
Posts: 3,669
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So can we give a rest with this luggage issue in this topic!? Or just start another one specific to it.
Hides unfortunately the very interesting discussion started about flying/landing an SSJ in direct law., POI, etc...
