Sheremetyevo Superjet 100 in flames

[mnttech]

Originally Posted by liider

Hard landing video, finally https://twitter.com/KFM936/status/1125124009597788160

Every thing I have tried to do that link fails.
It show a "landing", a big bounce, a second "landing" maybe a small bounce, engine fire on the ground impact, and then a lot of smoek.
It appears that the right engine kept running?
Maybe the right slide deflated slightly?

[172driver]

Originally Posted by Flapwing

Apparently the crew squawked 7500 (comm fail) followed by 7700 (emergency)... and from the video earlier the aircraft was not on fire until it "bounced" on the landing probably compromising fuel cells with the failed MLG...

lost comms is 7600. If they did indeed squawk 7500 then probably a mistake.

[Geosync]

Being in aviation claims I’ve seen my share of lightening strikes on all types of jets(albeit no Russian iron), to the point where they are the most benign claims I see. Not one of those aircraft crashed or so much declared an emergency. It makes me wonder about the design of the Superjet.

[f1yhigh]

cabin baggage lock

What do you think of airliners introducing an automatic cabin baggage lock in emergency situations? That would stop people from trying to grab luggage in the cabin in emergency situations.

[tdracer]

Originally Posted by evansb

The Sukhoi Superjet has been in service for several years, so I am quite certain it has survived its share of lightning strikes without serious incident.

So many factors, and so much speculation...but hey, that is what this forum is all about, although let us keep it professional.

Lightning strikes are not all created equal. The magnitude of the strike as well as the location (attach point and where it departs the airframe) make a big difference. IF this was lightning related...

[jugofpropwash]

Originally Posted by jack11111

I don't see flames until second bounce. Do others here agree?

If the first bounce caused a leak, perhaps when they bounced the second time, they scraped the runway and sparks caught the leak on fire?

[jugofpropwash]

Originally Posted by evansb

By the way, thanks for telling the entire non-flying terrorist community what '7500' means.
Any other security codes you wish to share globally?

If a terrorist is too stupid to spend 10 seconds on Google, I'm sure he's not smart enough to find Pprune.

[Alientali]

Originally Posted by evansb

Not on fire before the landing? How do you know? Just because flames were not visible when the aircraft was on approach doesn't mean there wasn't smoke in the cockpit.

By way, thanks for telling the entire non-flying terrorist community what '7500' means.
Any other security codes you wish to share globally?

None of the points below prove absence of fire before landing; however, in conjunction they give a high probability of that absence.

1. No fire on board reported by crew (COMs seem to have been intermittent, not dead).
2. Timing and character of fire is consistent with a likely scenario of a landing with that much fuel.
3. PAX video made during/shortly after landing suggests no smoke in cockpit prior to conflagration on the outside.

As to the codes - they are, and have been for a long time, so readily and widely available that no one would bother with looking for them on a message board.

[Iron Bar]

Boeing and Airbus main wheels are designed to detach and not penetrate fuel tanks, if overloaded or stressed beyond limits.

Do Sukhoi have similar design??

[Capn Bloggs]

Someone should have spotted that burning aircraft on approach and raised some alarms you would have thought.

One of those videos clearly shows it was NOT on fire prior to touchdown. It bounced/skipped, then came down hard the second time (just like the MD11 in Japan), I surmise the main gear collapsed, ruptured a tank and fuel fire ensued, as there is a flash of flame almost immediately after the second touchdown followed by a large puff of smoke/fuel then it ignited.

[Pilot DAR]

It bounced/skipped, then came down hard the second time

I opine (with no more information than the video itself) that prior to the "first" ground contact seen in the video, the aircraft had already touched down once, so "one" then "two" may really have been "two" then "three". Each ground contact was more violent than the preceding one. This has been seen before as an approach flown too fast, the pilot trying to force the plane onto the runway at too fast a speed (perhaps in this case, out of a sense of urgency for being on the ground, rather than in flight with another emergency), and a porpoised landing to destruction as the result. It does not appear that the nose was being held up to slow the plane into a flare.

[spacesage]

PIO

IMHO

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilot-induced_oscillation

[mickjoebill]

In answer to my earlier question, this 360 walk thought reveals flight crew door opens outwards into main cabin.

Debate on if overwing exits should have been deployed is moot as there are no over wing exits on the model photographed.

https://www.superjetinternational.co...rjet100/cabin/

It does look like an engine was running during the evacuation.

mjb

[e32lover]

I agree with the other poster. Baggage compartments should be locked during take off, landing and during emergencies. We will never know how many lives this would have saved in various accidents including this one.

[A Squared]

Originally Posted by jugofpropwash

If a terrorist is too stupid to spend 10 seconds on Google, I'm sure he's not smart enough to find Pprune.

Exactly, the transponder codes have been published openly without any restriction for at least 34 years by my direct personal observation (actually longer, that's just how long I personally have been seeing it in print) The idea that was some security secret is laughable.

[Bushbuck]

By any measure that landing(s) was a shocker. If both engines were performing adequately well, then there is no excuse for such a landing - lightning strike - or not. It appears that the landing contributed to the start of the fire.

[Lord Farringdon]

I am amazed at that guy who took the video of the crash sequence inside the aircraft. Did he know how much danger he was in? Even after that last, gear collapsing touch down which must have been bone shattering and then with all the flames and noise that followed? Yet his video was amazingly calm and steady like he was in a movie or a computer game where no one really gets hurt perhaps? A sort of virtual/real reality. Maybe he just wanted some more You Tube likes? Mind bending.

[7574ever]

Originally Posted by Bushbuck

By any measure that landing(s) was a shocker. If both engines were performing adequately well, then there is no excuse for such a landing - lightning strike - or not.

Perhaps flight control issues? It’s easy to say that when you haven’t had to confront the situation yourself...

[Super VC-10]

Photograph of the aircraft involved, seen in happier times.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/F...31593)_(2).jpg

[A Squared]

Originally Posted by 7574ever

Perhaps flight control issues? It’s easy to say that when you haven’t had to confront the situation yourself...

This.

A couple of videos and some few sketchy facts are not quite enough to claim that the flight crew performed poorly. Yeah, the landing looks awful, but I have no idea what challenges they were wrestling with. One could just as easily view the video of Al Haynes' landing in Sioux City with no additional information and conclude that he really screwed that one up, when in fact, he did a pretty damn good job considering the hand he was dealt.