|
while the calls for overhead bins to be locked are valid, problem is that a large amount of emergency equipment is stored in overhead lockers. So who and how unlocks them to retrieve the emergency equipment when required?
The answer is simple. How about the authorities do their job. It is a requirement to obey any LAWFUL instruction on board an aircraft. So any person leaving with a bag should simply be charged with a criminal offence. Bags stowed under the seat are no exception. In an emergency you are explicitly told to leave EVERYTHING behind. 41 counts of Manslaughter should be a significant deterrent. |
It is a requirement to obey any LAWFUL instruction on board an aircraft. So any person leaving with a bag should simply be charged with a criminal offence. Bags stowed under the seat are no exception. In an emergency you are explicitly told to leave EVERYTHING behind Let’s face it, The safety briefing is a farce. Passengers reading, talking, ignoring it (yeah yeah we know all that) - hostesses serving drinks and chatting to the guests up front during the auto briefing. Its just a tick in a box. No examination of pax afterwards (of course not - but just to illustrate the lack of seriousness). Schematic safety on board cards with indecipherable drawings and distracting colours don’t help. So when pax in a decompression sit with masks on mouths but not noses, when pax in a ditching can’t undo a seat belt or inflate the mae west prematurely in the cabin (and float to the roof) and when pax in an evacuation take all their kit - it is horrible - but to be expected. The whole thing is an alibi to satisfy authorities. Some airlines try to use humour to try to get attention, some insist on the PA but the pax generally remains a selfish animal for whom an aeroplane is just a means of transport and not the safety system aimed for by the crew (or at least some crews) and the flight safety department. The other thread about the overwing passenger in NZ is a case in point. By the way - a putative lockable rack door - would you have it locked or unlocked when evacuation checklist requires battery switched off? Would you have it on the emergency bus? Would you have each door locked manually by a square key? Wrong way to go. What does a pax really need on board - versus what does a pax take on board to avoid delays - should be looked at. Overnight bag pickup directly at the aircraft for folk in a hurry could be a way - as is done with kiddy buggies etc. and reduce the items brought into the cabin to a minimum. |
Originally Posted by 737 Driver
(Post 10465881)
I know nothing about this aircraft of its systems. I am just curious if the reported malfunction might have resulted in the crew having to do a zero flap land and/or no ground spoilers? I can't tell from the videos. That might provide some of the reason for the bounced landing (should have gone around anyway). Something like this can happen with the 737, and it makes for a touchy landing, particularly if you are fast.
But the post crash pictures clearly show slats and flaps extended in this case... So why did they bounce? (no ground Spoiler deployment, excessive speed ?) And why did they not went around after the first bounce? |
Originally Posted by bill fly
(Post 10466984)
Let’s face it, The safety briefing is a farce. Passengers reading, talking, ignoring it (yeah yeah we know all that) - hostesses serving drinks and chatting to the guests up front during the auto briefing.
Law enforcement seems to be a bit out of fashion, especially if it interferes with business... And just limited to certain special cases. Smoking a joint just potentially endangering your own health is punished harder than potentially endangering the life of other passengers... |
Can anyone confirm the gear was down before the first bounce? Electrical failures might have disrupted indications.
|
Originally Posted by KRH270/12
(Post 10467029)
And why did they not went around after the first bounce? |
Originally Posted by jugofpropwash
(Post 10467492)
Admittedly, asking as SLF - but if you've managed to bounce it hard enough to snap the landing gear and poke holes in the fuel tank, do you really want to go around with fuel gushing from the aircraft, or do you want to get down to where the fire trucks are as quickly as possible?
Not the last where everything broke loose.... |
Originally Posted by ehwatezedoing
(Post 10467494)
He said "after the first bounce"
Not the last where everything broke loose.... |
Originally Posted by jugofpropwash
(Post 10467492)
Admittedly, asking as SLF - but if you've managed to bounce it hard enough to snap the landing gear and poke holes in the fuel tank, do you really want to go around with fuel gushing from the aircraft, or do you want to get down to where the fire trucks are as quickly as possible?
|
Originally Posted by clearedtocross
(Post 10467156)
Can anyone confirm the gear was down before the first bounce? Electrical failures might have disrupted indications.
It looks to me (although I can't swear to it due to low video resolution) that the gear are already damaged by first ground contact, and thus progressively fold backwards during the airborne part of the first bounce under the influence of the high airspeed. By the second touchdown, they are folded back and useless. |
There is a video here from inside the plane where the two bounces can be identified. By frame counting the two videos, it's clear the time between first and second bounce is 2.0sec. Between second bounce and the "landing" is 3.5sec. So there are two bounces, where only second one is seen on the outside video. I don't count the "landing" as a bounce. This makes for a pretty accurate estimate on the runway (image below).
In comparison, the Tokyo Fedex MD11 had a first and second bounce of 2.0sec and 5.0sec. https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....3b93911219.jpg |
Originally Posted by tdracer
(Post 10466651)
Think about that for a second. A single switch (i.e. single failure), that will shutoff both engines.
|
Thanks gentleman, but really I'd prefer not to have a switch, or any mechanism really, with the authority to shut down both engines! |
Originally Posted by dukof
(Post 10467669)
...
Yep, watching this video, the first impression as if the engines were idle all the way down. Then, if one uses headphones and full volume, a very low frequency fluctuations may be heard from 2:20 onwards, giving an idea of possible minimal throttle inputs over the runway. There is also a characteristic air rambling noise corresponding either main gears or flaps, or spoilers. Not much fluctuation in pitch, roll or air flow noise, suggesting that the approach was one of the most stable possible and gentle on the controls. The level off was very smooth and gentle either and a/c was just floating and bleeding the speed until 2:45. At 2:45 the a/c almost kissed the ground, but ballooned. It could be, the stick back pressure was relaxed just a tiny bit here as the a/c pitch up moment was arrested. Some a/c types or their configuration (CofG, speed and mechanisation) require at least 2-4 bounces on its own before eventually recover with the full throttle and stick frozen in climbing position. Well I wonder, if Suchoi or any other plane was tested on the bounce recovery given the speed, weigh, CofG and mechanisation used in this scenario? |
Originally Posted by Joe_K
(Post 10465430)
The question is: why do airlines encourage PAX to bring as much crap as possible into the cabin.
|
Originally Posted by PAXboy
(Post 10468256)
I have never thought the airlines encourage it - the Pax started it for convenience - especially on connections. Carriers just had to adapt. Later some carriers made a virtue out of it but, I reckon, did not start it. Now they know the Pax want this and want to pay as little money as possible.
|
not just convenience but security too, perhaps if electrical goods were safe in the baggage handling world then more people might be tempted to put their cameras, laptops etc |
Originally Posted by apatity2
(Post 10468117)
Yep, watching this video, the first impression as if the engines were idle all the way down. Then, if one uses headphones and full volume, a very low frequency fluctuations may be heard from 2:20 onwards, giving an idea of possible minimal throttle inputs over the runway.
There is also a characteristic air rambling noise corresponding either main gears or flaps, or spoilers. Not much fluctuation in pitch, roll or air flow noise, suggesting that the approach was one of the most stable possible and gentle on the controls. The level off was very smooth and gentle either and a/c was just floating and bleeding the speed until 2:45. At 2:45 the a/c almost kissed the ground, but ballooned. It could be, the stick back pressure was relaxed just a tiny bit here as the a/c pitch up moment was arrested. Some a/c types or their configuration (CofG, speed and mechanisation) require at least 2-4 bounces on its own before eventually recover with the full throttle and stick frozen in climbing position. Well I wonder, if Suchoi or any other plane was tested on the bounce recovery given the speed, weigh, CofG and mechanisation used in this scenario? |
|
Interresting read. Are direct law landings practiced in simulators? |
Originally Posted by clearedtocross
(Post 10467156)
Can anyone confirm the gear was down before the first bounce? Electrical failures might have disrupted indications.
The fact that it did bounce three or four times tells you that the gear was down. |
Yes and if it had a lightning strike and all computer systems were damaged there is below direct law, mechanical backup (well, there is in the airbus ) trim wheel for pitch and rudder pedals for roll.
If that is the case I would like to see any of you heroes as it seems there is a plethora of here as always, do that perfectly in these circumstances especially the loud mouths telling us all how to land their C172. |
737 Driver-
Worth a read: atakacs Interresting read. Are direct law landings practiced in simulators? On the subject of Americans, I note the following in the comments section with regard to said article , in this case with reference to the SFO Asiana 777 accident--- The FAA issued a revision to 14 CFR Part 121, titled “Qualification, Service, and Use of Crewmembers and Aircraft Dispatchers,” on November 12, 2013, intended to enhance US air carrier pilot training programs by emphasizing the development of pilots’ manual handling skills. Among the changes was a new section, 14 CFR 121.423, “Pilot: Extended Envelope Training,” which states, in part, that pilots must receive training that includes the following maneuvers and procedures: manually controlled slow flight, manually controlled loss of reliable airspeed, manually controlled instrument departure and arrival, upset recovery maneuvers, and recovery from bounced landing. Operators’ compliance with this section is required no later than March 12, 2019.” |
Originally Posted by Phantom Driver
(Post 10469256)
.
Would be interesting to know to what extent compliance has taken place to date . This training required reprogramming and validation of the simulators. In the past, Level D simulators were not required to replicate the full stall regime. BTW, this is not a "Boeing" thing. The FAA did not require it, so the sims were never designed to practice full stalls. Rather, we only practiced an approach to stalls and recovery. After AF447, the FAA changed the requirement to include full stall training as well as other elements of rarely seen flight characteristics. In order to comply, the manufacturers had to collect the necessary flight test data and then the training devices needed to be programmed and modified. Apparently this is not just a matter of downloading a patch, and it took some time. The programming has now been completed on a number of our sims, and the EET training will be accomplished as pilots cycle through their normal training schedules. . 737 Driver made an observation in another thread ( now locked ) about an F/O not being aware of the existence of a stowable handle on the 737 manual trim wheel . Maybe the guy hadn't bothered to listen in class , but nevertheless it was rather shocking , coming from ( presumably) a major US operator . Difficult to then point fingers at 3rd world training departments. . Sadly, this wasn't a one off case of someone not listening. This training had been neglected due to, in part, the constant pressure in the training regime to stuff 10 lbs (or kg's) of stuff in a 5 lbs sack. I have made my displeasure known. I foresee this deficiency being rectified in the near future. |
Originally Posted by crossmaltese
(Post 10469251)
Yes and if it had a lightning strike and all computer systems were damaged there is below direct law, mechanical backup (well, there is in the airbus ) trim wheel for pitch and rudder pedals for roll.
If that is the case I would like to see any of you heroes as it seems there is a plethora of here as always, do that perfectly in these circumstances especially the loud mouths telling us all how to land their C172. |
At my Airbus operator we use a LPC / LOE structure for our annual training and thus get quite a lot of direct law landing / go around practice. I presumed that was normal! |
Originally Posted by wiedehopf
(Post 10469516)
The crew should be trained to land in direct law.
|
A very gentle flare initially. You have to pay attention to engine casing pitch, also the camera inertia (latency) in the video. This would normally correspond to a gentle stick manipulation and a/c pitching moments. The black box should confirm it later.
By the 2:45 the aircraft was well in the nose high attitude, landing smoothly the main wheels (check the tube videos and pics to see the Suchoi level on the ground engine casing pitch to horizon). Then, at 2:45, several centimetres from the ground, it looks like a little more back pressure was added to arrest the descend. So, as the airframe responds and gains the pitch up momentum, unlucky but not uncommon for everything that flys (swans including), the main gear chirp the ground, or a wind gust adds the odds and aircraft lifts again- you can observe ballooning happens a lot of times during the normal landing, plenty of videos on the tube. The ship is ballooning and no spoilers triggered. The pilots either go around or continue landing focusing on maintaining the pitch (as opposed trying to direct aircraft vertical speeds- PIO), so the ship eventually lands itself. Again there are lots of good videos on the tube giving good and bad examples. They also show many situations in which aircrafts are very forgiving. From what I can see on this video, after the balloon, the Superjet pilot did NOT provoke the aircraft with aggressive stick moves. Based on all the information available now, my opinion only, given the scenario of speed, weight, balance and mechanisation used - no one can do better with this airplane. I hope the black box information will be available soon. In the mean time give other pilots a go recreating the speeds, weight, balance and mech in the current version of Superjet sim. How does the model performs? It should be very accurate, as the Math in Russia is the strongest part. |
Originally Posted by rcsa
(Post 10466939)
What did for those in the back (as others have noted above) was the G-force effect of the first and second bounce. I suspect most of the pax behind the CoG were incapacitated by severe fracture/ head and spinal injuries / loss of consciousness, or blocked in by other pax suffering those injuries. I've seen what a 50-seat bus looks like when it's rolled, and I doubt it was much different inside SU1492, even before the fire broke out. A handful of trolley bags on the escape slide was the least of their worries.
The two crew survived were pictured without obvious signs of smoke inhalation (soot) so were probably seated in the forward cabin. It is hard to assess the vertical component of the impact from the video, but mitigating factors are the aircraft did not come to an abrupt halt and energy was absorbed by struts and the deformation of wings. The scene pictured on this video at 07 to 020 seconds shows perhaps one of the last conscious passengers off the plane. An unfortunate women with soot covered face and singed dress, struggling for breath. (note that the carry on bag next to her belongs to one of the passengers taking photos and initially ignoring her distress) https://www.liveleak.com/view?t=aOnbL_1557230227 Cabin crew look immaculate in comparison (no disrespect intended)
Originally Posted by Nubian Major
(Post 10465861)
@ mickjoebill, unlike structural firefighters, arffs response times are 3 minutes from time of call, get kit on and drive to incident, breathing apparatus if required donned, if internal, MUST report to entry control, this all takes time, risk assesment carried out, external fire controlled/ extinguished before commiting a crew internal.
|
For the contract lawyers and behavioural scientists. During safety briefing: 1/ “Only passengers who comply with emergency exit rules will be compensated for travel delays.” 2/ “Passengers who arrive at the assembly point without their bags will be rewarded with travel vouches.” mjb |
Originally Posted by mickjoebill
(Post 10470716)
For the contract lawyers and behavioural scientists. During safety briefing: 1/ “Only passengers who comply with emergency exit rules will be compensated for travel delays.” 2/ “Passengers who arrive at the assembly point without their bags will be rewarded with travel vouches.” mjb make it simplier... do not charge extra for loading the bags in cargo |
Originally Posted by FrequentSLF
(Post 10470736)
i found this post offensive...
make it simplier... do not charge extra for loading the bags in cargo |
Originally Posted by cats_five
(Post 10470765)
People will still want to take them in the cabin as there are delays waiting for hold baggage, plus there are plenty of airports with light-fingered staff, and bags can get damaged. Not only will hold bags have to be free, the light-fingered staff and damage will have to be addressed, and it will have to cost as much to take more than a handbag in the cabin as it currently costs to take a hold bag.
|
I suggest a few people have not read much.
There were several articles notably on Medusa in Russia, including of the last person to get out alive, who actually saw the severe lightning strike from his seat The bags issue is a load of horse manure on here, - can't think why, and why it has taken up and wasted pages. In some of the more recent articles in Russia there is a good deal of confusion even quoting the unfortunate Indonesian accident blaming the plane not the pilot. You really couldn't make it up! One accident with freak weather, and the rumour mill fills columns. When the level of disinformation gets to this pitch, it's time to call a halt. Next, one Russian press in particular filled with jealousy and schadenfreude plus some of the industry have the knives out for what is actually a very nice plane to fly on. Now they even try to plug the MC21 "cos it's made mostly in Russia right"? (One such "expert" Anastasia Dagaeva - an aviation columnist at Forbes, Vedomosti, Harvard Business Review... appears never to have flown on a SSJ). People have short memories, especially of the various A320/AF/AF447 issues which TBQH resulted in far higher accident rates non survivable crashes but had a compliant state and press to "pick up the pieces". (Let's not forget the decades of litigation blocked by cynical airbus lawyers and the absence of compensation for the A320 Mont St Odile crash, where most of the survivors died by freezing to death!) FYI, here the rear passengers in this A/C were condemned to die by the fuel fire and CO poisoning. Nothing would have saved them. Some heroes carried on trying to help passengers out and died themselves. It appears from the interview of the last one out, most people were NOT injured by the rough landing which was again speculated on, but those from the back rows that DID survive, picked themselves up and RAN as fast as possible for the forward exit while the A/C was still moving, and they realised rear exits would not work as they watched their windows melting... Like it or not, we have to wait for a full report from the MAK to get to the bottom of this, and explain why Aeroflot are currently grounding a lot of them. |
Originally Posted by Paul852
(Post 10471125)
On a point of pedantry, according to the official investigation, 15 people survived the initial impact. Of those, 6 died shortly afterwards. Of those 6 the report says:
So your assertion is clearly false. |
Emergency exits
A slight change of topic: shouldn’t a presence of an overawing exit improve significantly the survival rate on this accident? Maybe that certifications specifications should be updated on light to this accident?Regards, C.
|
Originally Posted by CHAPARRAL
(Post 10471194)
A slight change of topic: shouldn’t a presence of an overawing exit improve significantly the survival rate on this accident? Maybe that certifications specifications should be updated on light to this accident?Regards, C.
But otherwise I agree. |
Originally Posted by Paul852
(Post 10471125)
according to the official investigation,.
I lived in Alsace in that time, and was well aware of the extreme weather on that day. The victims and survivors have been treated like some sort of insect you can swot. As you may well know, most "official investigations" which are anything to do with Air Frantic end up with the same results,- corruption of the entire process and absence of any justice for the victims, just exactly the same as for industrial Asbestos which proved same cause and effect at the end of last year after decades and decades of fighting in the justice system. The parallels are absolutely staggering. If you know anything at all about the French justice system at all,- absolute power corrupts absolutely. Nobody accepts the "official version" has any validity at all in Alsace. |
I know that very considerable research has been conducted into smoke hoods on and off over the years. It appears odd to me that it has never been adopted or approved for service. Even the basic ones have achieved up to 10 minutes survival times in tests. Though clearly only valid for smoke and toxic fumes, though not likely to help much with full on fire. Be lucky David |
Originally Posted by up_down_n_out
(Post 10471203)
According to the official investigation most of the aspects of the accident were a clear whitwash to clear Air Inter's name, as well as those of that of Air France
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 15:27. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.