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 15th May 2019, 01:42
  #401 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: In the back of a bus
Posts: 954
Originally Posted by The AvgasDinosaur View Post
I know that very considerable research has been conducted into smoke hoods on and off over the years. It appears odd to me that it has never been adopted or approved for service.
Even the basic ones have achieved up to 10 minutes survival times in tests.
Though clearly only valid for smoke and toxic fumes, though not likely to help much with full on fire.
Be lucky
David
Its hard enough to get most pax to pay attention to the safety demo/ not walk around when the FSB sign is on/turn oiff their phone... instructing them how to use a smoke hood? Unlikely.

I had a regular pax who used to carry a personal one, I considered it for a time after seeing them offered in many Asian hotels and subway stations..
givemewings is offline  
Old 15th May 2019, 17:35
  #402 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: NEW YORK
Posts: 561
I've carried one for more than 10 years.
It seems a very cheap way to help the odds, although this crash happened so quickly that I'm not sure anyone would have had the time to tear open the pouch and fit the hood.
etudiant is offline  
Old 15th May 2019, 20:34
  #403 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 635
New video of the complete landing sequence. Must see.
fox niner is offline  
Old 15th May 2019, 21:44
  #404 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Geneva, Switzerland
Age: 50
Posts: 1,431
Originally Posted by fox niner View Post
New video of the complete landing sequence. Must see.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gkNoLSrzTQ8
As already sumized from the previous videos the approach seems fairly reasonable until touchdown... then things go awfully wrong. The last bounce is brutal and I'd be really interested to see the FDR traces to understand what happened.
atakacs is offline  
Old 16th May 2019, 08:38
  #405 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Spain
Age: 64
Posts: 84
After watching the mentioned video (#405), seems (to me) that could be TOGA applied after the second bounce, followed by a (suspected) strong down trim.
Evidently, thrust was applied after the second bounce...
guadaMB is offline  
Old 16th May 2019, 09:04
  #406 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Russia
Posts: 87
Originally Posted by guadaMB View Post
..could be TOGA applied after the second bounce, followed by a (suspected) strong down trim.
Evidently, thrust was applied after the second bounce...
Are you hinting fault was pilot or a/c or a combination of both?
Could be FDR, CVR, has already been analysed, and answer is already known.

up_down_n_out is offline  
Old 16th May 2019, 09:17
  #407 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Spain
Age: 64
Posts: 84
Originally Posted by up_down_n_out View Post
Are you hinting fault was pilot or a/c or a combination of both?
Could be FDR, CVR, has already been analysed, and answer is already known.
Physics go against that enormous acceleration WITHOUT man's action: thrust, TOGA...

In the passenger's video (#220) there's no trace of ANY usual flying inconvenience: turbulence, abnormal engines thrust, vibrations, etc.
If that video didn't end as it does, nobody could say that AC was in any kind of emergency. True is that no regular sounds of a pax cabin happen (it's heard a kind of breath, possibly from the mobile's owner).
Apparently the AC was "flyable" (flaps deployed, LG down, etc), but made the landing approach at higher speed than normal.

After the second bounce can be easily appreciated a thrust & up trim, this associated with TOGA action.
And immediately a down trim.
Could be one action made by one pilot and the second by the other? Possible.
Then, pilot(s) action(s) made possible such a big disaster. IMHO.

Last edited by guadaMB; 16th May 2019 at 09:40. Reason: Adding
guadaMB is offline  
Old 16th May 2019, 14:32
  #408 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Central UK
Posts: 297
Two things now seems clearer to me watching this video from a previously unseen angle.

Firstly the cause of the bounce now seems clearer, the last few feet of the approach seems to have been made with appreciable flare as might be ecpected, the nose-up attitude is quite noticeable until very close indeed to touchdown (8sec) but then the the nose pitches down to an attitude that is all but flat and - correct me if I'm imagining this - the main gear appears to rise a few feet as the attitude flattens (as it would with a rapid pitch down and gear behind the c of g) the aircraft drops hard onto three points resulting in the first bounce (10sec). The reason I don't think it made contact with the runway (though it must have been very close indeed) at 8 sec is that there is no sign of tyre smoke which is clearly visible at 10sec as it 'arrives' for the first bounce. That rather suggests it was carrying too much speed as has been proposed before. I can see no indication of any power being added later but then how could anyone see that? The divergent bounces are an all-too familair process of events in a situation where an immediate go-around is not instigated on the firt bounce.

Secondly the evacuation. From early on in the sequence we can see volumes of smoke coming from door 1L whereas previously we had seen none from the original filming aspect which only showed 1R - which appeared to be smoke free. Clearly the fuselage was breached early on in the evacuation sequence and was filled with smoke almost from the start, smoke tthat was blown by the wind passing across the lobby so it only exited via door 1L. Conditions even in the front of the cabin must have been barely survivable almost from the start.

One can only surmise at this point how much the blowtorch effect fom engine(s) left running might have exacerbated a burnthrough or whether breaches occurred during the landing itself, for instance from overrunning the detatched stbd gear during the groundloop.

Last edited by meleagertoo; 16th May 2019 at 14:48.
meleagertoo is online now  
Old 16th May 2019, 15:02
  #409 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: In the back of a bus
Posts: 954
Regarding post #410... in one of the cabin perspective videos it appears either there was a breach during landing or windows melted.. pax filming; the screaming gets louder and it seems there's visible flames in the cabin (my impression was it lit up the seat/wall and/or clothing of the pax seated behind the one filming, as you hear what sounds like someone patting away as you would try to put out a smoulder...)

Edit: after viewing on a bigger screen it may have been reflection, at the end though after the interphone chime goes off it certainly appears the fire is already about to enter if not already in the cabin at the midpoint... this video shows both cabin videos (there is a woman with distinctive scream heard in both- perhaps a Russian speaker can elaborate on what is being said)

At any rate there was very little time even before the aircraft came to a halt- the crew were certainly well aware as to me it sounds like an audible evacuation chime is sounding even before the interphone(?) Chime...

Does the Superjet have EES system like Airbus aircraft do? (The high pitched "bipbipbipbip" in the video is what this sounds like?)

END EDIT

Can't recall where posted, possibly Instagram but if I can find will post link...

EDIT to add link:

This also fits with the witness statement the Aft pax were up and running fwd during the deceleration...

Last edited by givemewings; 16th May 2019 at 15:57.
givemewings is offline  
Old 16th May 2019, 16:50
  #410 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Brighton, UK
Posts: 185
The rapid beeping sounds like a toilet smoke detector
TFlyguy is offline  
Old 16th May 2019, 17:14
  #411 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: London
Age: 49
Posts: 53
Originally Posted by givemewings View Post
Regarding post #410... in one of the cabin perspective videos...
(there is a woman with distinctive scream heard in both- perhaps a Russian speaker can elaborate on what is being said)
Woman's voice: "darling, darling"
Man's voice: "stay calm, stay calm"
douglasheld is offline  
Old 16th May 2019, 17:55
  #412 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Location: MOW
Posts: 28
Nope.
Woman: "we're on fire", "Vanechka [that's her son's name], follow me"
Man: "quiet, calm down", "everyone, go to exits"
jantar99 is offline  
Old 16th May 2019, 19:02
  #413 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Russia
Posts: 87
It would be appreciated if people stopped going into the goulish mode now, as the tide of speculation gathers.

We now live in the age of the instant crash video, the barely survivable internet - "let's screen all the excruciating details" - inc if this continues, people burning and screaming interactive like that loony did in NZ.

This is really a time to call a halt to this kind of "instagram mania", or next thing we have is publishing of CVR mat' in Russian?
I think there are others who share this feeling.
As one who may have actually flown on that very plane...I don't wish to hear even more harrowing details really.

This is what the MAK is for btw. OBJECTIVITY
Let them do their job.
up_down_n_out is offline  
Old 17th May 2019, 01:37
  #414 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: In the back of a bus
Posts: 954
Originally Posted by TFlyguy View Post
The rapid beeping sounds like a toilet smoke detector
I had wondered that as well, I don't have experience on Sukhoi bit have flown A330/380 B777 and it also sounds similar to Airbus but could also be the lav. Did seem a tad early for signalling system to be activated unless it were the Art crewmember doing so as he would have known much sooner how serious it was.

But lab seems more likely given the timing.
givemewings is offline  
Old 17th May 2019, 01:45
  #415 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: In the back of a bus
Posts: 954
Up Down, many of us are professionals here. As a decade plus cabin crew this accident really got my attention due to the evacuation really not going as expected . I also prefer to get facts from a report but we all know that takes years (if the facts ever all.come out) in the meantime if there is anything to learn here that may save lives down the track Id rather know it now. To be honest this sort of video is a sorely needed wakeup call for the tiny percentage of crew who gloss over the realities of the job and think it's all travel and Instagram. There's not a lot of footage of seriously dire emergencies from a cabin standpoint so into its a valuable training resource that hopefully will be be used in future to train crews. Simulated emergencies are never going to induce the fear seen here. It's do some crew good to be exposed to this response in pax before they face it in reality.

I put the video link behind a cut for a reason, unfortunately the website forces the preview which I'd rather weren't there.

The social media videos may well be what brings full disclosure of all facts- Russian authorities historically haven't had the best track record so although it's not great from some.pperspectives to have footage out there, perhaps the result will balance it out in the end. Unfortunately there will always be ghouls especially on the internet.
givemewings is offline  
Old 17th May 2019, 05:19
  #416 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: here and there
Posts: 162
Originally Posted by up_down_n_out View Post
As one who may have actually flown on that very plane...I don't wish to hear even more harrowing details really.
Go to the "thread tools" pull down menu, then select "unsubscribe from this thread".
formulaben is offline  
Old 17th May 2019, 15:22
  #417 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: dublin
Posts: 1
LIGHTNING
Can someone tell me where this LIGHTNING STRIKE cause has been proven or even half proven? To me it is obfuscation to deflect cause away from airline and Russia. If a lighting strike can down a plane, then the plane is not properly constructed. I have been struck too many times to mention including a ball of St Elmo Fire rolling down the entire cabin front to back with no ill effects.
A straw poll of a few friends this morning of recent crashes shows that whoever gets the info out first wins

Concorde - blamed on Continental Airways
AF 447 blamed on icing of pitot tubes
BMA Kegworth blamed on new instruments
Lionair and ET blamed on MCAS. - yes I know the jury is out but I am really looking forward to the true story to emerge in due course. I could be wrong but I have cited human factors and lack of training as major causes since the beginning of these discussions. And you won't fix that with a quickie software fix.
Happy Flying
Y
yanrair is offline  
Old 17th May 2019, 18:11
  #418 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Only upon request
Posts: 848
It was disclosed today that the aircraft touched down with a vertical acceleration of 5.85g.

I heard from an Aeroflot source that pilots who end up on the SSJ vs Airbus or Boeing fleets are those who perform the least during their pilot training.
FLEXJET is offline  
Old 17th May 2019, 19:07
  #419 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Everett, WA
Age: 64
Posts: 2,457
Originally Posted by FLEXJET View Post
It was disclosed today that the aircraft touched down with a vertical acceleration of 5.85g.
Which time? The first bounce appears fairly benign, second is worse, third bounce all hell breaks loose.
The question remains - was the lightning (or other) induced systems damage so bad as to make the aircraft very difficult to fly, or did the crew botch what should have been a straight forward landing of a perfectly flyable aircraft?

tdracer is offline  
Old 17th May 2019, 19:46
  #420 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2019
Location: St.Petersburg
Posts: 2
There is unofficial info-leak in Russian media. It states that: 1st bounce - 2.55G, 2nd - 5.85 G, 3rd - 'more than 5G'
Threshold passed at 40 ft / 164 kt, then at 5 m (16ft) it was 170 kt
SanchesS80 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.