|
Originally Posted by Interflug
(Post 10464327)
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.
|
Originally Posted by WHBM
(Post 10464545)
Likewise the only widebody manufacturer never to have had a passenger fatality on one of their large aircraft is ... Ilyushin.
Google found this to refresh my memory : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeroflot_Flight_343 in fact the accident was a bit similar to this SSJ one . There also have a been a couple in East Germany times in the 70s.. and of course if you include IL-76s that is totally another statistic :rolleyes: |
To apologise for OT on another say day in aviation
But this hand baggage issue is all of the airlines own making - they blatantly offer CBO only fares and then everyone moans then there is too much hand and wheeled sized luggage brought on board. The answer is simple - stop the CBO fares - Only allow one small piece like before, that must be able to fit under your seat, (even new A350's in Y have no centre overhead bins) (and maybe also allow a ladies handbag or a laptop/man bag/duty frees) |
Originally Posted by A. Muse
(Post 10464524)
Just a thought, (my name is after all A. Muse). Why not save weight and expense by not installing overhead lockers I the first place?
|
Sheremetyevo Superjet 100 in flames
Sad case for all, RIP.
If reporting is at all correct TR Code 7600 (comms failure) after lightening strike. Now whilst this is inconvenient it does not necessitate a rapid immediate return. So probably a lot more going on. If the Flight control computers were affected this would have compromised the normal fly by wire systems and may have left the crew with degraded flight control. This may go some way to explaining the Heavy Landing / Poor bounce recovery technique that resulted in the loss of main UC and resultant fire. Some of my colleagues in a previous life had the pleasure of training Russian pilots on the B757, and whilst certain aspects of the training was 'challenging' the aircraft handling near the ground was generally very good. Lets hope the inquiry comes up with the answers without politics getting in the way. |
For pities sake 7500 is unlawful interference, not comms failure. Easy way to remember: 75 taken alive 76 technical glitch 77 go to heaven |
|
Not quite true. I was in Luxemburg in 1982 and a IL-62 crashed there |
Originally Posted by tlott
(Post 10463838)
getting PAGE NOT FOUND. has it been pulled? |
According to Interfax citing the captain of SU1492, after a lightning strike the FBW system switched to direct law.
"командир экипажа Денис Евдокимов сообщил: 'Из-за молнии у нас произошла потеря радиосвязи и переход самолета не через компьютер, а напрямую - на аварийный режим управления' " |
Originally Posted by yanrair
(Post 10464586)
dear tlott getting PAGE NOT FOUND. has it been pulled? |
Originally Posted by yanrair
(Post 10464586)
dear tlott
getting PAGE NOT FOUND. has it been pulled? |
Originally Posted by paperHanger
(Post 10463933)
It is Russia, someone has to pay for the bad publicity, they either have heroes, or someone goes to jail ... there seems to be no middle ground.
|
Originally Posted by davidjohnson6
(Post 10464448)
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 ? https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/def...nt%2021%29.pdf The BA38 crash would have be a different story if the B777 had not met theis requirement better. Its tanks dd of course have far less fuel in them, but there was no significant leakage. |
Thruster763, the SSJ was certified to EASA standards, so on paper at least it met those same requirements.
|
Originally Posted by Thruster763
(Post 10464602)
No, one would not. It is a certification requirement that this does not happen in a survivable accident see FAR/CS 25.963 (d)
https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/def...nt%2021%29.pdf The BA38 crash would have be a different story if the B777 had not met theis requirement better. Its tanks dd of course have far less fuel in them, but there was no significant leakage. |
Originally Posted by A. Muse
(Post 10464519)
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. |
Originally Posted by andrasz
(Post 10464489)
FD, I think Auxtank meant that as a figure of speech, the trucks were in position about 25-30 seconds after the plane came to a halt, the best one could expect under any circumstances (as oppsed to more than 90 at SVO).
|
BBC confirming (for what that’s worth) lightning strike. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-48174169 |
"If you have any baggage in the cabin, people will try to take it with them, even with flames and smoke in the cabin. So limiting size does very little to change behaviour."
Quite right but I wonder if the aim should be not to forbid luggage in the cabin per se, but to make sure that the habit of people to take it with them doesn't involve their standing in the aisle to do so, or having to wheel it out, thus significantly obstructing other people's egress. So if it can't be stowed overhead (the idea of not having passenger lockers) and is small enough not to be an obstacle in itself (forbidding larger wheeled cases, or anything that can't fit under a seat) then any time and obstruction involved in retrieving it prior to departing the plane will be minimised. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 06:26. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.