Sheremetyevo Superjet 100 in flames

[What-ho Squiffy!]

Yeah, it's a big secret:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transponder_(aeronautics)

[Pearly White]

Originally Posted by 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.

Maybe he was so jammed in by other passengers he couldn't move, and thought even if he didn't get out, his video might, would if he was live streaming? If he was only lingering to get a few more likes that seems pretty daft, if not mind-bending.

[pattern_is_full]

I agree right engine runs for about a minute after the aircraft comes to a stop, fanning the flames. Apparently did not deter pax from evacuating (good thing). I have no idea if that was simply how long it took the crew to "unstartle" and run the shut-down list, or if the previous impact and/or hypothetical lightning strike had damaged engine controls (remember "stuck" #1 engine on the Singapore/Qantas A380?) It may simply have stopped only once the fuel had leaked out and burned on the ground.

Salute to whoever it was that ran back into the burning plane. I suspect it was the FO getting the CAPT out of the cockpit and down the slide head-first (dark "objects" on slide). Zero further comment on crew until we know a lot more about what degraded controls they may have been fighting.

Agree the fire response was slowish - but we don't know what they were told to expect and how they were deployed. Remember there were comm problems with the aircraft.

Whatever else goes on with the SSJ-100, it looks like it may have a "Ford Pinto problem." Tendency to collapse gear in a way that ruptures fuel tanks.

[etrang]

Originally Posted by 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.

Locked baggage compartments would make the situation worse as people struggled to try and open them. If airlines wanted to prevent this they could simply ban cabin luggage.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

Does anybody know what the fire service rescue reaction time should be at an airport like this

I think ICAO is 3 minutes to any point of an operational RWY (2 minutes recommended) and 3 minutes to any other part of the movement area. If they were only alerted when the aircraft actually crashed, it appears they got there within the standard. 2 minutes can be a long time.

[RickNRoll]

Originally Posted by andrasz

Full uncut video of the first 5 minutes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5OnYm5uIE8

00:20 Aircraft comes to a stop
00:30 First slide deploys
01:51 First Fire truck arrives
02:13 Last evacuation on slide
02:50 RH cockpit crew evacuates using rope
03:30 Crew member climbs back to plane on slide
03:47 Smaller and larger dark objects slide down slide
03:55 Crew member slides down slide

Somone actually has a video in landscape mode so they letterbox it into portrait mode.

[mickjoebill]

Originally Posted by etrang

Locked baggage compartments would make the situation worse as people struggled to try and open them. If airlines wanted to prevent this they could simply ban cabin luggage.

Part of the check in procedure and safety briefing would be to remind passengers that baggage lockers would be locked in an emergency.
"doors and bins locked for landing"
This would take a few decades to become ubiquitous across a carrier's fleet.
A passenger fumbling with the overhead locker is less of an obstruction than one tripping down the isle with a wheelie.

Mjb

[MungoP]

While nothing can be ruled out at this stage I would say that if handling difficulties were the cause of the terrible landing attempt then they must have occurred very late in the approach. A pilot experiencing handling problems doesn't simply squawk 7600 indicating a radio failure.

[ThreeThreeMike]

Originally Posted by paperHanger

Fair enough, you would have thought the fire crews would have been chasing it down the tarmac though? I've had that before now, for far less important events, including an icident at Coventry that is probably best forgotten ...

Now that video of the landing has surfaced, it's apparent the speed of the aircraft and the multiple bounces resulted in it quickly traveling hundreds of meters further than ARFF expected, and this resulted in the delayed arrival at the crash scene.

[mangere1957]

Originally Posted by chafra

T And the first AC loss due to CFIT also had electrical failure, hadn't it?
​​​​

No electrical failure on the Jakarta crash. One pilot failure very analogous to the TE901 pilot failure.

[blind pew]

Bounced landings

My first solo I bounced and not knowing what to do nearly destroyed the aircraft. Similarly I had the oxygen masks out on my only one on a jet before I figured out how to handle one.
Many many pilots and a lot of instructors do not know how to salvage one.
My last passenger flight in a light aircraft saw the nose gear wrecked when the owner with more than 1000 hours on type bounced and then pushed the stick forward.
We were landing upwards on a mountain strip. I stopped his second and third attempts to kill us.
I've taught many qualified glider pilots who should have already been shown what to do but didn't know how to salvage a bounce without the luxury of a power plant.
Blame the system, lack of understanding and fear.
You generally bounce because you have too much energy and if a go around is not possible or desirable then roughly maintain attitude unless extreme. As the energy bleeds off the aircraft will descend and a check back on the stick will produce something comfortable.
Part of the problem is the philosophy that the aircraft must be on the ground in the TDZ regardless of runway length available.

[mangere1957]

Originally Posted by Decision_Height

If its in direct law then likely a handful...

If every landing was in direct law then pilots wouldn't find it "a handful" when they were faced with a direct law landing, no doubt with other problems as well.

[roksajet]

Originally Posted by f1yhigh

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.

This is probably the only way that people will leave their cabin luggage behind. Every pax that took his luggage with him in this case is probably responsible for a death for at least 5 pax for blocking the aisle for a few seconds.

[jugofpropwash]

Originally Posted by etrang

Locked baggage compartments would make the situation worse as people struggled to try and open them. If airlines wanted to prevent this they could simply ban cabin luggage.

I was about to say the same thing regarding locking the bins. If airlines would stop charging for checked bags that would be a start - and then do away with the overhead bins, and only allow what fits under the seat. People are still going to insist on evacuating with their stuff, but a readily accessed purse or laptop case isn't going to cause the aisle blockage and other issues that luggage will. And it's more than sufficient to carry any "must haves" like passport or meds.

[arearadar70]

Originally Posted by 172driver

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

In my day as an Air Traffic Contoller, a long time ago, Squawk 7500 meant lost. 7600 meant Radio/Comms failure and 7700 meant Mayday

[A4]

Part of the problem is the philosophy that the aircraft must be on the ground in the TDZ regardless of runway length available.

Problem? Ensuring you’re in the touchdown zone is a primary preventative aim (no pun) to stop runway excursion. It’s a pretty fundamental requirement - and not difficult. If a pilot is unable to consistently land within the TDZ then there is something wrong with their training/SMS/them. Runway length is irrelevant - encouraging long/deep landings “because you can” is the first hole in the cheese.....nothing as useless as runway behind you.

I know nothing about the SSJ. Is it FBW? Approach looked fast (flapless?) SSJ version of Direct Law? Stuck THS? Massive / multiple electrical failure can lead to any number of issues.

A4

[blind pew]

TDZ

Occasionally there are conditions that catch even the best out such as wind shear, the effects of low level inversions, stress including fatigue, wake turbulence with a tailwind and a go around or thump it in in the TDZ isn't the optimal solution.

[MungoP]

//ru.flightaware.com/live/flight/AFL1492/history/20190505/1500Z/UUEE/ULMM Indicates that a/c attained 3000 ft before instigating a rapid descent to 1000 while positioning for the approach with an orbit prior to joining finals. speed over threshold 150 kts.

[GICASI2]

Bounce into an undamped fugoid - something we were all warned about prior to first solo. Bounce? Hold the landing attitude and wait for the impending contact! Or GO AROUND or don’t bounce in the first place.

[CaptainProp]

Originally Posted by jack11111

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

Agree. There’s a (security cam?) video showing aircraft from quartering tail view from first bounce and it catches fire only once it touches down the second time.

CP