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 18th May 2019, 15:25
  #421 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Canada
Posts: 360

Crashed Superjet's pitch fluctuated before fatal touchdown

  • 18 May, 2019
  • SOURCE: Flight Dashboard
  • BY: David Kaminski-Morrow
  • London
Russian investigators have disclosed that the Sukhoi Superjet 100 involved in a fatal accident at Moscow Sheremetyevo was 1.6t over its maximum landing weight, and experienced two impacts in excess of 5g as it bounced on landing.

The Interstate Aviation Committee says it has completed an initial analysis of information from the flight-data recorder retrieved from the Aeroflot jet after the 5 May event.

Investigators have revealed that the crew received windshear warnings on approach and that the aircraft experienced pitch fluctuations just before the fatal touchdown.

Federal air transport regulator Rosaviatsia, in a detailed outline of the flight, states that the aircraft suffered an electrical failure at 8,900ft – about 5min after take-off from runway 24C – while following the KN 24E standard departure pattern for a service to Murmansk.

The aircraft’s autopilot disengaged and the aircraft’s flight control system dropped into direct law.

Rosaviatsia does not specifically state that the aircraft was struck by lightning, but it does point out that the aircraft was flying within a “zone of thunderstorm activity”.

The flight recorder registered disengagement of the autothrottle, and Rosaviatsia says the captain manually controlled the aircraft for the remainder of the flight.

Unable to communicate on the approach frequency, the crew restored VHF radio links using the emergency frequency 121.5MHz, and was vectored back to Sheremetyevo while transmitting the squawk code ’7600’ for loss of communication.

The aircraft conducted an ILS approach, in manual mode, to runway 24L.

Rosaviatsia says the aircraft had departed with a take-off weight of just over 43.5t and that its weight upon entry to the glideslope was 42.6t – which, it says, exceeded the maximum landing weight by 1.6t.

As required for the overweight landing, and the direct-law control, the flaps were set to 25°. The crew also upgraded the squawk code to the emergency setting ‘7700’.

The aircraft remained largely stable on the approach – performed in a crosswind from the left of up to 30kt – with an airspeed of 155-160kt.

As the Superjet descended through 1,100-900ft above ground, the crew received five predictive windshear “go around” warnings.

The aircraft began to dip below the glideslope at about 260ft and, at 180ft, a glideslope alert sounded.

Thrust was subsequently increased, with the throttle levers alternately advanced and retarded between 18° and 24° as the aircraft descended to 40ft. This resulted in the airspeed increasing to 164kt as it crossed the threshold and 170kt at 16ft from touchdown.

As the captain retarded the throttle to idle, says Rosaviatsia, he made several alternating inputs to the side-stick with “large amplitudes” – up to the maximum – which resulted in the pitch varying between 6° nose-up and 2° nose-down.

While the aircraft had appeared close to touchdown at about 700m from the threshold, Rosaviatsia says the first three-point contact with the runway occurred at 900m from the threshold at 158kt, when the aircraft experienced an impact of more than 2.5g, and bounced to about 6ft.

Rosaviatsia says the aircraft’s spoilers did not deploy automatically. Aeroflot stresses that its procedures do not require the manual deployment of spoilers until thrust-reverse is activated and the aircraft is settled and stable on the runway.

“In the absence of a stable course the release of the spoilers was impossible,” the carrier adds.

Having bounced, the aircraft touched down 2s later on its nose-gear at 155kt, with a heavy impact of 5.85g, causing the Superjet to bounce a second time, to a height of 18ft. The third, and final, impact occurred at 140kt – reaching at least 5g – and was immediately followed by damage to the aircraft’s structure, a fuel spill and fire.

As the aircraft decelerated through 100kt, sliding along the runway, a fire alarm was triggered in the aft baggage and cargo compartment, followed by a fire alarm in the auxiliary power unit 16s later. The aircraft’s PowerJet SaM146 engines continued operating until the end of the flight-data recorder trace just after 18:31.

Rosaviatsia says the captain had logged 1,570h on type out of a total of 6,844h while the first officer had 623h on type.

The aircraft (RA-89098) had accumulated 2,710h over the course of 1,658 cycles.

Rosaviatsia says the fatalities comprised 40 of the 73 passengers and one of the five crew members, while six passengers and three crew were injured.

Aeroflot stresses that the preliminary information disclosed by Rosaviatsia does not reference errors by the crew or any violation of procedures, and that final conclusions have yet to be released by the investigating authorities.
Longtimer is offline  
Old 18th May 2019, 16:34
  #422 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Geneva, Switzerland
Age: 50
Posts: 1,432
all those figures seem in agreement with the video and I still don't understand why a relatively benign overweight / overspeed landing turned into this catastrophe. As others I really wonder if thrust was not applied after the second bounce. There seem to be a lot of energy added at that point.
atakacs is offline  
Old 18th May 2019, 18:07
  #423 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Ontario
Posts: 2
It is clear as water in the video that after the final bounce, the aircraft landed hard and went through the MLG. This in turn caused the aircraft to scrape along the runway, which ruptured the fuel tanks. It did not help that the engines were still running as well!

At least the LOT 767 pilots switched off their engines at the last second when they landed without a landing gear!
A320ECAM is offline  
Old 18th May 2019, 18:25
  #424 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Toronto
Posts: 2,214
One Two Punch from CB

First the lightning strike and consequent degradation to direct law among other failures.

Then the windshear on short final. I am reminded of the Dallas DC-10, New Orleans 727 and Toronto A340 losses with nearby CBs.

​​​​​The meteorology section of the final report will be interesting. Hopefully weather radar recordings will be available.
RatherBeFlying is offline  
Old 18th May 2019, 23:03
  #425 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Denver
Posts: 976
Originally Posted by A320ECAM View Post
It is clear as water in the video that after the final bounce, the aircraft landed hard and went through the MLG. This in turn caused the aircraft to scrape along the runway, which ruptured the fuel tanks.
I think the events were slightly different, not that it changed the ultimate outcome (or the primary causes). "The aircraft landed hard and went through the MLG - which themselves ruptured the fuel tanks - and then scraped along the runway."

Looking at the better video (Post 405, time 00:20-00:21) of the bounces and aftermath, it can be seen that there is a separate fireball that occurs briefly in the wake, about 20 meters behind the aircraft. There was already fuel loose as a large fuel-vapor cloud (mixed with smoke) trailing behind the aircraft within a fraction of a second of touchdown.

See also post 38 - previous SSJ MLG collapse which also spilled a lot of fuel (fortunately, without ignition).
pattern_is_full is offline  
Old 19th May 2019, 03:58
  #426 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: N/A
Posts: 2,923
Wonder what they're trying to say here
The RIA-Novosti news agency said it had obtained a report from Rosaviatsiya, the civil aviation authority, which showed the brakes — flaps that hang down from a plane — were not used
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05-...-says/11127638

Wonder also about the nature of the horizontal stab issue
Also known as the Superjet, it was heralded as a new phase for Russia's civil aviation industry.

But the plane has been troubled by concerns about defects in the horizontal stabilisers.

In 2017 Russia's aviation authority ordered inspection of all Superjets in the country because of the problems
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05-...oscow/11086258
megan is offline  
Old 19th May 2019, 11:38
  #427 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Europe
Age: 42
Posts: 24
Originally Posted by A320ECAM View Post
It is clear as water in the video that after the final bounce, the aircraft landed hard and went through the MLG. This in turn caused the aircraft to scrape along the runway, which ruptured the fuel tanks. It did not help that the engines were still running as well!

At least the LOT 767 pilots switched off their engines at the last second when they landed without a landing gear!
All the fuss about running engines....

The massive shower of sparks from the tail scrapping over the tarmac ignited the fuel vapor
KRH270/12 is offline  
Old 19th May 2019, 12:05
  #428 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Where it is comfortable...
Age: 55
Posts: 686
Originally Posted by Longtimer View Post
As the Superjet descended through 1,100-900ft above ground, the crew received five predictive windshear “go around” warnings.
From the Rosaviatsia statement the above quote appears to be the most revealing. From everything known so far it appears that the crew was mentally fixed on having a major emergency requiring an immediate return to terra firma no matter what, whereas what they had was a perfectly flyable airplane with some degraded non-essential avionics. The rest are just consequences.

Originally Posted by megan View Post
Wonder what they're trying to say here
Ground spoilers. In direct law they need to be deployed manually.
andrasz is offline  
Old 19th May 2019, 13:52
  #429 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Sudbury, Suffolk
Posts: 138
Originally Posted by andrasz View Post
From everything known so far it appears that the crew was mentally fixed on having a major emergency requiring an immediate return to terra firma no matter what,
In which case the apparent lack of preparedness of the AFRS seems more surprising
Maninthebar is offline  
Old 20th May 2019, 09:58
  #430 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: what U.S. calls ´old Europe´
Posts: 934
Originally Posted by KRH270/12 View Post
All the fuss about running engines....
The massive shower of sparks from the tail scrapping over the tarmac ignited the fuel vapor

And the massive airflow from the running engines allowed perfect atomisation of the fuel burning at a much higher rate and with much more heat generated than a burning puddle on the tamac, once the aircraft came to a standstil !
This turned the fire into a massive blowtorch.
Volume is offline  
Old 20th May 2019, 22:27
  #431 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Location: MOW
Posts: 28
Originally Posted by Maninthebar View Post
In which case the apparent lack of preparedness of the AFRS seems more surprising
They quite verbally replied to the ATC just before landing that the landing will be normal.

Last edited by Pilot DAR; 21st May 2019 at 00:45. Reason: Went to the effort to replace "b4" with "before"...
jantar99 is offline  
Old 20th May 2019, 23:01
  #432 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: In the back of a bus
Posts: 954
Originally Posted by jantar99 View Post
They quite verbally replied to the ATC just before landing that the landing will be normal.
Right, so until that point you would expect they'd have been ready and waiting as the situation was an unknown, return to field with possible control issues.

Generally after an initial activation I've not seen fire service pack up until the aircraft has rolled out and been confirmed ok... Do they have a different method of escalation/emergency activation for arff in Russia?
givemewings is offline  
Old 20th May 2019, 23:17
  #433 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Location: MOW
Posts: 28
Originally Posted by givemewings View Post
Right, so until that point you would expect they'd have been ready and waiting as the situation was an unknown, return to field with possible control issues.

Generally after an initial activation I've not seen fire service pack up until the aircraft has rolled out and been confirmed ok... Do they have a different method of escalation/emergency activation for arff in Russia?
I won't argue with you as our prosecutors and/or Rosaviatsia (Russian FAA) will consider everything in detail and report in due time.
For me as a layman that Q and A between the pilot and the ATC was clearly about: "Do you need the ARFF?" - "No".
jantar99 is offline  
Old 21st May 2019, 11:25
  #434 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: 100 Group Country
Posts: 187
Originally Posted by megan View Post

Wonder also about the nature of the horizontal stab issue
Cracks in the horizontal stab rear spar. Controlled by AD.
Vick Van Guard is offline  
Old 3rd Jun 2019, 11:49
  #435 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Russia
Posts: 87
Looks like it's the end of the line for SSJ, next will be the chop, as they are quoting exaggerated figs of a 7 billion funding fig.
People are scared to fly on the thing!

What a shame, it's one of the most gorgeous A/c to fly on I have been on in years

https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2019/...l-crash-a65850
up_down_n_out is offline  
Old 3rd Jun 2019, 15:24
  #436 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 120
Originally Posted by up_down_n_out View Post
Looks like it's the end of the line for SSJ
Never mind, Aeroflot will be able to fly their passengers in the super safe B737 MAX instead...…..
SamYeager is offline  
Old 3rd Jun 2019, 17:28
  #437 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 88
Originally Posted by Vick Van Guard View Post
Cracks in the horizontal stab rear spar. Controlled by AD.
The the cracks were not in the horizontal stab rear spar. The inspection was of the horizontal stab attachment bracket lugs, the cracking was due to the interference fit bushes being fitted with too tight a tolerance into the lugs.
Once the fleet were modified there was never to my knowledge any more issues, although they still required inspection at an increased interval.
Webby737 is offline  
Old 3rd Jun 2019, 18:43
  #438 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 10,895
Originally Posted by SamYeager View Post
Never mind, Aeroflot will be able to fly their passengers in the super safe B737 MAX instead...…..
Well they would, if they had any in their fleet or on order. They don't.
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 3rd Jun 2019, 19:07
  #439 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Russia
Posts: 87
Thumbs down

Originally Posted by SamYeager View Post
Never mind, Aeroflot will be able to fly their passengers in the super safe B737 MAX instead...:
dunno what right that gives you to come out with such tosh after a fatal accident.
Those 41 are not coming back from the dead, like the JAK 42 accident in Jaroslavl (which was pilot error)..
Sarcasm is supposed to be the lowest form of humour.

I wouldn't be at all suprised if this final nail in the coffin for SSJ was actually nothing to do with the A/c which has its own share of maintenance issues, but some newby who couldn't land an (admitted overweight) plane in circumstances where it was quite likely could have continued with some fun and games - but nevertheless continued to its original destination...

Sounds suspiciously like pilot error on this one, nothing whatsoever to do with MAX issues thanks...

up_down_n_out is offline  
Old 4th Jun 2019, 12:36
  #440 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 88
Originally Posted by up_down_n_out View Post
Looks like it's the end of the line for SSJ, next will be the chop, as they are quoting exaggerated figs of a 7 billion funding fig.
People are scared to fly on the thing!

What a shame, it's one of the most gorgeous A/c to fly on I have been on in years

https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2019/...l-crash-a65850
I agree, it's a shame.
It's not a bad aircraft to fly on, certainly there's plenty of space in the cabin although I think it was a bit noisy.
Any crew I spoke to loved flying them !
It's a pity they never sorted out the spare parts problem or amended the manuals. It's very difficult to operate an aircraft with a very limited MEL and an SRM that contains next to no allowable damage.
In addition to that, add in the amount of man-hours required for the routine inspections (most based on calendar date) and the aircraft doesn't really stand a chance in comparison to it's western competitors.
Webby737 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.