Sheremetyevo Superjet 100 in flames
For the avoidance of doubt, anyone who has ever looked closely at Russian aircraft will know that Russia is more than capable of designing and building high quality safe reliable products.
It seems that a hard landing led to fuel tank(s) rupturing and fuel then igniting.
Would one expect a similiar rupture with other comparable aircraft (eg C Series) after a comparable landing or does it seem particularly unfortunate that the fuel tanks did not remain intact ?
Would one expect a similiar rupture with other comparable aircraft (eg C Series) after a comparable landing or does it seem particularly unfortunate that the fuel tanks did not remain intact ?
Total speculation, but...maybe
Lightning strike, electrical failure. Thus 7600.
its a glass cockpit jet, so maybe limited speed info. So bring it in at a safe, but fast speed.
Land, electrical failure, so no spoilers. Bounce....
The rest we've seen.
Lightning strike, electrical failure. Thus 7600.
its a glass cockpit jet, so maybe limited speed info. So bring it in at a safe, but fast speed.
Land, electrical failure, so no spoilers. Bounce....
The rest we've seen.
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: earth
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's indeed childish nonsense, considering the Russian space program didn't lose a man since 1980 or so. Vs the US lost two complete ships with all souls on board since. Surely the Russkis are not a technological power house of innovation, but particularly the space program - the only one that currently safely flies people into space regularly, including the US astronauts - is a badly chosen example for exposing their backwardness.
Interesting: https://www.boeing.com/news/frontier...nfeature1.html
The Russkis might not have the technological wealth of others, but they certainly have the brains for it.
Interesting: https://www.boeing.com/news/frontier...nfeature1.html
The Russkis might not have the technological wealth of others, but they certainly have the brains for it.
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Where databases don't crash
Age: 47
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: England
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I second this. I'm a first responder too (not in the aviation-sector). I've seen people in panic and fear for their life, while trying to rescue them. Some people will act completly irrational and they may be doing things without thinking about it.
I've seen people jumping out of burning buildings, people that were completely frozen, people that are totally erratic and need to be grabbed and calmed down.
Most pax only experience with leaving airplanes is:
- Grab your luggage
- leave airplane
I think some of them haven't tought about it through while acting.
Just a tought before everyone criminalizes the people leaving with the luggage.
I've seen people jumping out of burning buildings, people that were completely frozen, people that are totally erratic and need to be grabbed and calmed down.
Most pax only experience with leaving airplanes is:
- Grab your luggage
- leave airplane
I think some of them haven't tought about it through while acting.
Just a tought before everyone criminalizes the people leaving with the luggage.
I'd like to add that emergency evacuation goes against everything passengers have been 'trained' to do over years of flying as pax. We're taught that it's vital we are submissive and quiet. We queue between the ribbons, obediently. We empty our belongings into a tray, obediently. We wait until our seat row is ready to board, obediently. We present our documentation, obediently. We sit in our assigned seats, obediently. We fasten our seatbelts, obediently. We restore our seats to the upright position, obediently. We switch off our electronic devices, obediently. We collect our hand-luggage and leave by the indicated exit, obediently.
We know the routine off by heart, and we know that we have to accept the routine and adjust ourselves to minor changes such as leaving by stairs and bus instead of air-bridge..
We fail to watch the safety drill, because we've seen it several hundred times before, and it's designed cleverly to suggest that it's an exercise in box-ticking. The airline absolutely doesn't want you to think that flying is dangerous, and they especially don't want you to think that flying with THIS airline is more dangerous than with others.
Passengers don't get trained for emergencies, like crew. We have no muscle memory, we are all startle factor. Even with flames and smoke, the cabin crew screaming unfamiliar instructions instead of "Take care when opening the overhead lockers..." may not compute.
Airlines WANT docile, unthinking passengers. If we didn't tacitly agree to be docile and unthinking, airlines would go bust.
In the video taken from right front, the smoke does not start coming from the cockpit windows and RF door until approx 1:40 after the aircraft stops. The people who escape during the 1st 60 secs generally get up from the bottom of the slide and walk/run away. In the remaining 40 secs the very few that use the slide stay collapsed at the bottom, or walk away and collapse. If the smoke from the door indicates the interior finally caught fire, it was all over well before then due heat/smoke/fumes.
Icarus2001
Based on what I've experienced mainly in Europe over 50 years, heavy jets, light aircraft, gliders and ultalights. (Even paragliders with wind shear below 40ft).
And to answer wrt TDZ and SOP; specific bomb threat, slow spooling up low bypass, positive wind shear at low level, rotor, significant terrain in the overshoot, low fuel and running out of flight control authority..all realistic possibilities that I've come across when how to correctly handle a bounce is essential.
From one of the videos it shows the aircraft is pitched nose down after the first bounce and at the last moment pitched up which would have rotated the gear into the runway.
And to answer wrt TDZ and SOP; specific bomb threat, slow spooling up low bypass, positive wind shear at low level, rotor, significant terrain in the overshoot, low fuel and running out of flight control authority..all realistic possibilities that I've come across when how to correctly handle a bounce is essential.
From one of the videos it shows the aircraft is pitched nose down after the first bounce and at the last moment pitched up which would have rotated the gear into the runway.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Wintermute
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Four fire trucks and support vehicles within feet of engines before the thing has even stopped moving...
Virgin Atlantic VS43 Boeing 747- 400 G-VROM Emergency Landing, Gatwick.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZqDP-FMgTy8
Virgin Atlantic VS43 Boeing 747- 400 G-VROM Emergency Landing, Gatwick.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZqDP-FMgTy8
Fd
Early this morning it was stated this was an immediate return to land, due to control difficulties experienced by the crew after take off (no fuel dump) The plane was said to have been hit by lightning shortly after take off - maybe disabling the radio, comms, and other systems, reported Russia's Interfax news agency.
The reported first attempt to land ended in a GA due aircraft too fast and high, (need confirmation of this GA) and the second landing was sadly very fast & unstable, baulked and control was lost - hard landing, one or both main gears collapsed and huge split fuel fire erupted during the long ground slide.
(aircraft seemingly NOT on fire prior to landing)
Flats and LE slats were deployed for the Landing.
Overhead bins did not seem to fall down, or open on the heavy landing from video evidence.
Rear exits both unusable - no over-wing exits fitted to this type - EVAC signal and chimes heard in pax video, EVAC was from from doors 1L and 1R (amazing that the 1L slide survived the fire)
Any over-wing exits fitted may anyway have been breached/unusable by the ferocity of the fire up to midships.
Fire services were not on scene immediately to provide foam over the serious fuel fire, but were in situ whilst the EVAC was still in progress.
The cross wind did blow the fire back away from the mid and forward fuselage, allowing exit from both forward doors. But the fire was very close, or even under door 1L.
The rear flight attendant remained on board assisting everyone to try to be evacuated but he died in the fire, unable to open the rear doors.
The reported first attempt to land ended in a GA due aircraft too fast and high, (need confirmation of this GA) and the second landing was sadly very fast & unstable, baulked and control was lost - hard landing, one or both main gears collapsed and huge split fuel fire erupted during the long ground slide.
(aircraft seemingly NOT on fire prior to landing)
Flats and LE slats were deployed for the Landing.
Overhead bins did not seem to fall down, or open on the heavy landing from video evidence.
Rear exits both unusable - no over-wing exits fitted to this type - EVAC signal and chimes heard in pax video, EVAC was from from doors 1L and 1R (amazing that the 1L slide survived the fire)
Any over-wing exits fitted may anyway have been breached/unusable by the ferocity of the fire up to midships.
Fire services were not on scene immediately to provide foam over the serious fuel fire, but were in situ whilst the EVAC was still in progress.
The cross wind did blow the fire back away from the mid and forward fuselage, allowing exit from both forward doors. But the fire was very close, or even under door 1L.
The rear flight attendant remained on board assisting everyone to try to be evacuated but he died in the fire, unable to open the rear doors.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: wishing to be in YPCC but stuck near EGSS
Age: 75
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The issue of pax taking cabin baggage with them in emergency evacuations rears its' head yet again. Only legislation will prevent large bags being taken on board as, has been mentioned above, baggage is a revenue source.
Having experienced a cabin free of baggage on a flight, I can say it hastened loading and unloading of SLF and was altogether a pleasant experience. Sadly this experience was as a result of 9/11.
I was booked on the first flight out of LGW on 9/12 and check-in staff had no idea what to do, and delayed check in whilst a decision was made. The instruction was given 'no cabin baggage except passports and essential medication'.
100 pax opening hold bags to stuff in hand baggage in a check-in queue was a mess, but it happened. The resulting flight was comfortable with no one getting up to access lockers, and disembarkation was swift.
I for one would like to see a 'no cabin baggage' rule, or at least an enforced maximum of 12 x 12 x 6 inches or a foreign equivalent.
Having experienced a cabin free of baggage on a flight, I can say it hastened loading and unloading of SLF and was altogether a pleasant experience. Sadly this experience was as a result of 9/11.
I was booked on the first flight out of LGW on 9/12 and check-in staff had no idea what to do, and delayed check in whilst a decision was made. The instruction was given 'no cabin baggage except passports and essential medication'.
100 pax opening hold bags to stuff in hand baggage in a check-in queue was a mess, but it happened. The resulting flight was comfortable with no one getting up to access lockers, and disembarkation was swift.
I for one would like to see a 'no cabin baggage' rule, or at least an enforced maximum of 12 x 12 x 6 inches or a foreign equivalent.
Last edited by A. Muse; 6th May 2019 at 12:56. Reason: Spacing
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: wishing to be in YPCC but stuck near EGSS
Age: 75
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just a thought, (my name is after all A. Muse). Why not save weight and expense by not installing overhead lockers in the first place?
Last edited by A. Muse; 6th May 2019 at 14:03. Reason: typo
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: BRS/GVA
Posts: 342
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Wintermute
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Appreciated, comment was more to demonstrate that with the distances involved and the variability of the situation, practically there will always be delays and not insubstantial ones.
Andrasz video is a must see for airport fire fighters. 30 seconds can make a lot of difference. As earlier they can cool the cabin, as more people have a chance to escape. Also all the small vehicles standing in the way of optimal positioning the water canon fire trucks.
As humans, we like to believe a catastrophe like this will never happen to me - it can only affect other people
The first airline to impose a policy drastically limiting hand luggage for safety reasons (as opposed to 'not enough space in overhead lockers') will likely see a significant fall in sales revenue while competitors continuing to allow hand luggage unchanged will see a commercial gain.
If limiting hand luggage in a significant way is to happen, it has to either be via Govt passing law, or by airlines imposing a monetary charge for hand luggage (thus leading to many pax choosing to save money and cutting their hand luggage voluntarily). The events of 9/11 were a one-off and people accepted the hike in security screening temporarily because it was a one-off... persuading that 9/11 was the new normal was never going to work
The first airline to impose a policy drastically limiting hand luggage for safety reasons (as opposed to 'not enough space in overhead lockers') will likely see a significant fall in sales revenue while competitors continuing to allow hand luggage unchanged will see a commercial gain.
If limiting hand luggage in a significant way is to happen, it has to either be via Govt passing law, or by airlines imposing a monetary charge for hand luggage (thus leading to many pax choosing to save money and cutting their hand luggage voluntarily). The events of 9/11 were a one-off and people accepted the hike in security screening temporarily because it was a one-off... persuading that 9/11 was the new normal was never going to work