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 8th May 2019, 04:38
  #321 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Connecticut, USA
Age: 60
Posts: 236
Originally Posted by FrequentSLF View Post
the answer is very simple.. pax do not want to pay for luggage, airlines want to profit from it.
period!
Are the airlines really saving that much by encouraging passengers to lug everything into the cabin with them? How many flight attendants are injured helping people with their bags, or having bags fall on them? How much time is wasted when people try to bring bags on board that don't fit, and have to be moved to the hold?

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.
jugofpropwash is offline  
Old 8th May 2019, 04:48
  #322 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Everett, WA
Age: 64
Posts: 2,522
Originally Posted by Auxtank View Post
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.
Auxtank, static dischargers are unrelated to lightning protection. Basically you're talking the difference between a slowly increasing voltage (static electricity) and near instantaneous, very high lightning induced voltage spikes.
Apples and bananas....
tdracer is offline  
Old 8th May 2019, 05:51
  #323 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2019
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 1
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:

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.
Translation:

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.
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.
kerzha is offline  
Old 8th May 2019, 07:54
  #324 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: timbuktu
Posts: 104
Originally Posted by jugofpropwash View Post
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.
Dear God, no! There is little enough leg room in economy as it is, without clogging up space with bags under the seats.
marchino61 is offline  
Old 8th May 2019, 08:15
  #325 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Where it is comfortable...
Age: 55
Posts: 702
Originally Posted by 737 Driver View Post
zero flap land and/or no ground spoilers? I can't tell from the videos.
Post-fire closeup photos (eg. on AVH) clearly show slats/flaps extended in normal landing config (~25 deg by the look of it)

andrasz is offline  
Old 8th May 2019, 12:14
  #326 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Here
Posts: 59
Originally Posted by kerzha View Post
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.
This raises the 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 regardless that it might guide you in the wrong direction? Not something I've ever considered as a passenger before.
Ripton is offline  
Old 8th May 2019, 12:23
  #327 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Denver, Colorado, USA
Posts: 144
...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...
IIRC, All together. The cabin crew is supposed to use the Mark 1 eyeball to ensure it is safe to use the exit.
mnttech is offline  
Old 8th May 2019, 12:27
  #328 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 129
In the light of this accident overhead bins should be made lockable for takeoff and landing.
Saint-Ex is offline  
Old 8th May 2019, 12:39
  #329 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Cape Town, ZA
Age: 58
Posts: 419
Originally Posted by mnttech View Post
IIRC, All together. The cabin crew is supposed to use the Mark 1 eyeball to ensure it is safe to use the exit.
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
GordonR_Cape is offline  
Old 8th May 2019, 12:41
  #330 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 10,980
Originally Posted by Saint-Ex View Post
In the light of this accident overhead bins should be made lockable for takeoff and landing.
See above discussion.

And countless others on the same topic on PPRuNe ...

It's not going to happen.
DaveReidUK is online now  
Old 8th May 2019, 12:45
  #331 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Oslo, Norway
Posts: 189
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?
Interesting perspective, thanks for the reply.

No idea why my post was deleted, mods?
PanPanYourself is offline  
Old 8th May 2019, 13:00
  #332 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: London
Age: 60
Posts: 95
Another passenger video ...
https://www.liveleak.com/view?t=aOnbL_1557230227
Alanwsg is offline  
Old 8th May 2019, 13:05
  #333 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Germany
Posts: 51
Originally Posted by andrasz View Post
Post-fire closeup photos (eg. on AVH) clearly show slats/flaps extended in normal landing config (~25 deg by the look of it)
Are you talking about this Foto? Perhaps it is take off flaps?
http://avherald.com/img/aeroflot_su9...w_190505_4.jpg


rak64 is offline  
Old 8th May 2019, 13:12
  #334 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Korea
Posts: 69
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?
Euclideanplane is offline  
Old 8th May 2019, 13:32
  #335 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Here
Posts: 59
Originally Posted by GordonR_Cape View Post
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
It's an interesting document but it would appear to suggest that the only thing that will stop passengers from following the route indicator lights to an exit that is not operational is the cabin crew diverting them. That might not work so well if the cabin crew have already succumbed to fire/smoke or other injuries or the cabin environment is too chaotic to understand their vocal commands.

Last edited by Ripton; 8th May 2019 at 17:11. Reason: Thanks to Argonix for pointing out the mistake in my original edit.
Ripton is offline  
Old 8th May 2019, 15:06
  #336 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Location: MOW
Posts: 30
Originally Posted by marchino61 View Post
Dear God, no! There is little enough leg room in economy as it is, without clogging up space with bags under the seats.
Whenever I seat by the window, I have my backpack with me between my shins. No problem in case of most carriers. I am 183 cm tall, not a short pal. This way I can reach my ebook, camera, whatever else at any moment.
jantar99 is offline  
Old 8th May 2019, 16:06
  #337 (permalink)  
Drain Bamaged
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Earth
Age: 52
Posts: 423
Originally Posted by jantar99 View Post
Whenever I seat by the window, I have my backpack with me between my shins. No problem in case of most carriers. I am 183 cm tall, not a short pal. This way I can reach my ebook, camera, whatever else at any moment.
Even during a 10 hours flight? Is it properly tucked below the seat? etc...

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.
ehwatezedoing is offline  
Old 8th May 2019, 17:37
  #338 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 407
Originally Posted by kerzha View Post
My own observation - flight attendants always say that in case of emergency, head for the nearest exit.
They actually say "the nearest AVAILABLE exit"
giggitygiggity is offline  
Old 8th May 2019, 17:52
  #339 (permalink)  
Pegase Driver
 
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 69
Posts: 2,650
So can we give a rest with this luggage issue in this topic!? Or just start another one specific to it.
Absolutely.! same old story here since decades as soon as we see pictures with pax leaving with luggage. nothing new,

Hides unfortunately the very interesting discussion started about flying/landing an SSJ in direct law., POI, etc...
ATC Watcher is offline  
Old 8th May 2019, 18:13
  #340 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Planet Earth, mostly
Posts: 438
Originally Posted by mnttech View Post
IIRC, All together. The cabin crew is supposed to use the Mark 1 eyeball to ensure it is safe to use the exit.
The question is about the lights in the floor, the aisle floor lighting, which is a good question.

etrang is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

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