|
Originally Posted by The AvgasDinosaur
(Post 10471340)
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 I had a regular pax who used to carry a personal one, I considered it for a time after seeing them offered in many Asian hotels and subway stations.. |
I've carried one for more than 10 years.
It seems a very cheap way to help the odds, although this crash happened so quickly that I'm not sure anyone would have had the time to tear open the pouch and fit the hood. |
New video of the complete landing sequence. Must see. |
Originally Posted by fox niner
(Post 10472054)
New video of the complete landing sequence. Must see. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gkNoLSrzTQ8 |
After watching the mentioned video (#405), seems (to me) that could be TOGA applied after the second bounce, followed by a (suspected) strong down trim.
Evidently, thrust was applied after the second bounce... |
Originally Posted by guadaMB
(Post 10472401)
..could be TOGA applied after the second bounce, followed by a (suspected) strong down trim.
Evidently, thrust was applied after the second bounce... Could be FDR, CVR, has already been analysed, and answer is already known. |
Originally Posted by up_down_n_out
(Post 10472415)
Are you hinting fault was pilot or a/c or a combination of both?
Could be FDR, CVR, has already been analysed, and answer is already known. In the passenger's video (#220) there's no trace of ANY usual flying inconvenience: turbulence, abnormal engines thrust, vibrations, etc. If that video didn't end as it does, nobody could say that AC was in any kind of emergency. True is that no regular sounds of a pax cabin happen (it's heard a kind of breath, possibly from the mobile's owner). Apparently the AC was "flyable" (flaps deployed, LG down, etc), but made the landing approach at higher speed than normal. After the second bounce can be easily appreciated a thrust & up trim, this associated with TOGA action. And immediately a down trim. Could be one action made by one pilot and the second by the other? Possible. Then, pilot(s) action(s) made possible such a big disaster. IMHO. |
Two things now seems clearer to me watching this video from a previously unseen angle.
Firstly the cause of the bounce now seems clearer, the last few feet of the approach seems to have been made with appreciable flare as might be ecpected, the nose-up attitude is quite noticeable until very close indeed to touchdown (8sec) but then the the nose pitches down to an attitude that is all but flat and - correct me if I'm imagining this - the main gear appears to rise a few feet as the attitude flattens (as it would with a rapid pitch down and gear behind the c of g) the aircraft drops hard onto three points resulting in the first bounce (10sec). The reason I don't think it made contact with the runway (though it must have been very close indeed) at 8 sec is that there is no sign of tyre smoke which is clearly visible at 10sec as it 'arrives' for the first bounce. That rather suggests it was carrying too much speed as has been proposed before. I can see no indication of any power being added later but then how could anyone see that? The divergent bounces are an all-too familair process of events in a situation where an immediate go-around is not instigated on the firt bounce. Secondly the evacuation. From early on in the sequence we can see volumes of smoke coming from door 1L whereas previously we had seen none from the original filming aspect which only showed 1R - which appeared to be smoke free. Clearly the fuselage was breached early on in the evacuation sequence and was filled with smoke almost from the start, smoke tthat was blown by the wind passing across the lobby so it only exited via door 1L. Conditions even in the front of the cabin must have been barely survivable almost from the start. One can only surmise at this point how much the blowtorch effect fom engine(s) left running might have exacerbated a burnthrough or whether breaches occurred during the landing itself, for instance from overrunning the detatched stbd gear during the groundloop. |
Regarding post #410... in one of the cabin perspective videos it appears either there was a breach during landing or windows melted.. pax filming; the screaming gets louder and it seems there's visible flames in the cabin (my impression was it lit up the seat/wall and/or clothing of the pax seated behind the one filming, as you hear what sounds like someone patting away as you would try to put out a smoulder...)
Edit: after viewing on a bigger screen it may have been reflection, at the end though after the interphone chime goes off it certainly appears the fire is already about to enter if not already in the cabin at the midpoint... this video shows both cabin videos (there is a woman with distinctive scream heard in both- perhaps a Russian speaker can elaborate on what is being said) At any rate there was very little time even before the aircraft came to a halt- the crew were certainly well aware as to me it sounds like an audible evacuation chime is sounding even before the interphone(?) Chime... Does the Superjet have EES system like Airbus aircraft do? (The high pitched "bipbipbipbip" in the video is what this sounds like?) END EDIT Can't recall where posted, possibly Instagram but if I can find will post link... EDIT to add link: This also fits with the witness statement the Aft pax were up and running fwd during the deceleration... |
The rapid beeping sounds like a toilet smoke detector |
Originally Posted by givemewings
(Post 10472681)
Regarding post #410... in one of the cabin perspective videos...
(there is a woman with distinctive scream heard in both- perhaps a Russian speaker can elaborate on what is being said) Man's voice: "stay calm, stay calm" |
Nope.
Woman: "we're on fire", "Vanechka [that's her son's name], follow me" Man: "quiet, calm down", "everyone, go to exits" |
It would be appreciated if people stopped going into the goulish mode now, as the tide of speculation gathers.
We now live in the age of the instant crash video, the barely survivable internet - "let's screen all the excruciating details" - inc if this continues, people burning and screaming interactive like that loony did in NZ. This is really a time to call a halt to this kind of "instagram mania", or next thing we have is publishing of CVR mat' in Russian? I think there are others who share this feeling. As one who may have actually flown on that very plane...I don't wish to hear even more harrowing details really. This is what the MAK is for btw. OBJECTIVITY Let them do their job. |
Originally Posted by TFlyguy
(Post 10472762)
The rapid beeping sounds like a toilet smoke detector But lab seems more likely given the timing. |
Up Down, many of us are professionals here. As a decade plus cabin crew this accident really got my attention due to the evacuation really not going as expected . I also prefer to get facts from a report but we all know that takes years (if the facts ever all.come out) in the meantime if there is anything to learn here that may save lives down the track Id rather know it now. To be honest this sort of video is a sorely needed wakeup call for the tiny percentage of crew who gloss over the realities of the job and think it's all travel and Instagram. There's not a lot of footage of seriously dire emergencies from a cabin standpoint so into its a valuable training resource that hopefully will be be used in future to train crews. Simulated emergencies are never going to induce the fear seen here. It's do some crew good to be exposed to this response in pax before they face it in reality.
I put the video link behind a cut for a reason, unfortunately the website forces the preview which I'd rather weren't there. The social media videos may well be what brings full disclosure of all facts- Russian authorities historically haven't had the best track record so although it's not great from some.pperspectives to have footage out there, perhaps the result will balance it out in the end. Unfortunately there will always be ghouls especially on the internet. |
Originally Posted by up_down_n_out
(Post 10472819)
As one who may have actually flown on that very plane...I don't wish to hear even more harrowing details really.
|
LIGHTNING
Can someone tell me where this LIGHTNING STRIKE cause has been proven or even half proven? To me it is obfuscation to deflect cause away from airline and Russia. If a lighting strike can down a plane, then the plane is not properly constructed. I have been struck too many times to mention including a ball of St Elmo Fire rolling down the entire cabin front to back with no ill effects. A straw poll of a few friends this morning of recent crashes shows that whoever gets the info out first wins Concorde - blamed on Continental Airways AF 447 blamed on icing of pitot tubes BMA Kegworth blamed on new instruments Lionair and ET blamed on MCAS. - yes I know the jury is out but I am really looking forward to the true story to emerge in due course. I could be wrong but I have cited human factors and lack of training as major causes since the beginning of these discussions. And you won't fix that with a quickie software fix. Happy Flying Y |
It was disclosed today that the aircraft touched down with a vertical acceleration of 5.85g.
I heard from an Aeroflot source that pilots who end up on the SSJ vs Airbus or Boeing fleets are those who perform the least during their pilot training. |
Originally Posted by FLEXJET
(Post 10473672)
It was disclosed today that the aircraft touched down with a vertical acceleration of 5.85g.
The question remains - was the lightning (or other) induced systems damage so bad as to make the aircraft very difficult to fly, or did the crew botch what should have been a straight forward landing of a perfectly flyable aircraft? |
There is unofficial info-leak in Russian media. It states that: 1st bounce - 2.55G, 2nd - 5.85 G, 3rd - 'more than 5G'
Threshold passed at 40 ft / 164 kt, then at 5 m (16ft) it was 170 kt |
Crashed Superjet's pitch fluctuated before fatal touchdown
Russian investigators have disclosed that the Sukhoi Superjet 100 involved in a fatal accident at Moscow Sheremetyevo was 1.6t over its maximum landing weight, and experienced two impacts in excess of 5g as it bounced on landing. The Interstate Aviation Committee says it has completed an initial analysis of information from the flight-data recorder retrieved from the Aeroflot jet after the 5 May event. Investigators have revealed that the crew received windshear warnings on approach and that the aircraft experienced pitch fluctuations just before the fatal touchdown. Federal air transport regulator Rosaviatsia, in a detailed outline of the flight, states that the aircraft suffered an electrical failure at 8,900ft – about 5min after take-off from runway 24C – while following the KN 24E standard departure pattern for a service to Murmansk. The aircraft’s autopilot disengaged and the aircraft’s flight control system dropped into direct law. Rosaviatsia does not specifically state that the aircraft was struck by lightning, but it does point out that the aircraft was flying within a “zone of thunderstorm activity”. The flight recorder registered disengagement of the autothrottle, and Rosaviatsia says the captain manually controlled the aircraft for the remainder of the flight. Unable to communicate on the approach frequency, the crew restored VHF radio links using the emergency frequency 121.5MHz, and was vectored back to Sheremetyevo while transmitting the squawk code ’7600’ for loss of communication. The aircraft conducted an ILS approach, in manual mode, to runway 24L. Rosaviatsia says the aircraft had departed with a take-off weight of just over 43.5t and that its weight upon entry to the glideslope was 42.6t – which, it says, exceeded the maximum landing weight by 1.6t. As required for the overweight landing, and the direct-law control, the flaps were set to 25°. The crew also upgraded the squawk code to the emergency setting ‘7700’. The aircraft remained largely stable on the approach – performed in a crosswind from the left of up to 30kt – with an airspeed of 155-160kt. As the Superjet descended through 1,100-900ft above ground, the crew received five predictive windshear “go around” warnings. The aircraft began to dip below the glideslope at about 260ft and, at 180ft, a glideslope alert sounded. Thrust was subsequently increased, with the throttle levers alternately advanced and retarded between 18° and 24° as the aircraft descended to 40ft. This resulted in the airspeed increasing to 164kt as it crossed the threshold and 170kt at 16ft from touchdown. As the captain retarded the throttle to idle, says Rosaviatsia, he made several alternating inputs to the side-stick with “large amplitudes” – up to the maximum – which resulted in the pitch varying between 6° nose-up and 2° nose-down. While the aircraft had appeared close to touchdown at about 700m from the threshold, Rosaviatsia says the first three-point contact with the runway occurred at 900m from the threshold at 158kt, when the aircraft experienced an impact of more than 2.5g, and bounced to about 6ft. Rosaviatsia says the aircraft’s spoilers did not deploy automatically. Aeroflot stresses that its procedures do not require the manual deployment of spoilers until thrust-reverse is activated and the aircraft is settled and stable on the runway. “In the absence of a stable course the release of the spoilers was impossible,” the carrier adds. Having bounced, the aircraft touched down 2s later on its nose-gear at 155kt, with a heavy impact of 5.85g, causing the Superjet to bounce a second time, to a height of 18ft. The third, and final, impact occurred at 140kt – reaching at least 5g – and was immediately followed by damage to the aircraft’s structure, a fuel spill and fire. As the aircraft decelerated through 100kt, sliding along the runway, a fire alarm was triggered in the aft baggage and cargo compartment, followed by a fire alarm in the auxiliary power unit 16s later. The aircraft’s PowerJet SaM146 engines continued operating until the end of the flight-data recorder trace just after 18:31. Rosaviatsia says the captain had logged 1,570h on type out of a total of 6,844h while the first officer had 623h on type. The aircraft (RA-89098) had accumulated 2,710h over the course of 1,658 cycles. Rosaviatsia says the fatalities comprised 40 of the 73 passengers and one of the five crew members, while six passengers and three crew were injured. Aeroflot stresses that the preliminary information disclosed by Rosaviatsia does not reference errors by the crew or any violation of procedures, and that final conclusions have yet to be released by the investigating authorities. |
all those figures seem in agreement with the video and I still don't understand why a relatively benign overweight / overspeed landing turned into this catastrophe. As others I really wonder if thrust was not applied after the second bounce. There seem to be a lot of energy added at that point. |
It is clear as water in the video that after the final bounce, the aircraft landed hard and went through the MLG. This in turn caused the aircraft to scrape along the runway, which ruptured the fuel tanks. It did not help that the engines were still running as well! At least the LOT 767 pilots switched off their engines at the last second when they landed without a landing gear! |
One Two Punch from CB
First the lightning strike and consequent degradation to direct law among other failures.
Then the windshear on short final. I am reminded of the Dallas DC-10, New Orleans 727 and Toronto A340 losses with nearby CBs. The meteorology section of the final report will be interesting. Hopefully weather radar recordings will be available. |
Originally Posted by A320ECAM
(Post 10474400)
It is clear as water in the video that after the final bounce, the aircraft landed hard and went through the MLG. This in turn caused the aircraft to scrape along the runway, which ruptured the fuel tanks. Looking at the better video (Post 405, time 00:20-00:21) of the bounces and aftermath, it can be seen that there is a separate fireball that occurs briefly in the wake, about 20 meters behind the aircraft. There was already fuel loose as a large fuel-vapor cloud (mixed with smoke) trailing behind the aircraft within a fraction of a second of touchdown. See also post 38 - previous SSJ MLG collapse which also spilled a lot of fuel (fortunately, without ignition). |
Wonder what they're trying to say here
The RIA-Novosti news agency said it had obtained a report from Rosaviatsiya, the civil aviation authority, which showed the brakes — flaps that hang down from a plane — were not used Wonder also about the nature of the horizontal stab issue Also known as the Superjet, it was heralded as a new phase for Russia's civil aviation industry. But the plane has been troubled by concerns about defects in the horizontal stabilisers. In 2017 Russia's aviation authority ordered inspection of all Superjets in the country because of the problems |
Originally Posted by A320ECAM
(Post 10474400)
It is clear as water in the video that after the final bounce, the aircraft landed hard and went through the MLG. This in turn caused the aircraft to scrape along the runway, which ruptured the fuel tanks. It did not help that the engines were still running as well! At least the LOT 767 pilots switched off their engines at the last second when they landed without a landing gear! The massive shower of sparks from the tail scrapping over the tarmac ignited the fuel vapor |
Originally Posted by Longtimer
(Post 10474297)
As the Superjet descended through 1,100-900ft above ground, the crew received five predictive windshear “go around” warnings.
Originally Posted by megan
(Post 10474657)
Wonder what they're trying to say here
|
Originally Posted by andrasz
(Post 10474860)
From everything known so far it appears that the crew was mentally fixed on having a major emergency requiring an immediate return to terra firma no matter what,
|
Originally Posted by KRH270/12
(Post 10474844)
All the fuss about running engines....
The massive shower of sparks from the tail scrapping over the tarmac ignited the fuel vapor And the massive airflow from the running engines allowed perfect atomisation of the fuel burning at a much higher rate and with much more heat generated than a burning puddle on the tamac, once the aircraft came to a standstil ! This turned the fire into a massive blowtorch. |
Originally Posted by Maninthebar
(Post 10474921)
In which case the apparent lack of preparedness of the AFRS seems more surprising
|
Originally Posted by jantar99
(Post 10475928)
They quite verbally replied to the ATC just before landing that the landing will be normal.
Generally after an initial activation I've not seen fire service pack up until the aircraft has rolled out and been confirmed ok... Do they have a different method of escalation/emergency activation for arff in Russia? |
Originally Posted by givemewings
(Post 10475954)
Right, so until that point you would expect they'd have been ready and waiting as the situation was an unknown, return to field with possible control issues.
Generally after an initial activation I've not seen fire service pack up until the aircraft has rolled out and been confirmed ok... Do they have a different method of escalation/emergency activation for arff in Russia? For me as a layman that Q and A between the pilot and the ATC was clearly about: "Do you need the ARFF?" - "No". |
Originally Posted by megan
(Post 10474657)
Wonder also about the nature of the horizontal stab issue |
Looks like it's the end of the line for SSJ, next will be the chop, as they are quoting exaggerated figs of a 7 billion funding fig.
People are scared to fly on the thing! What a shame, it's one of the most gorgeous A/c to fly on I have been on in years https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2019/...l-crash-a65850 |
Originally Posted by up_down_n_out
(Post 10485416)
Looks like it's the end of the line for SSJ
|
Originally Posted by Vick Van Guard
(Post 10476271)
Cracks in the horizontal stab rear spar. Controlled by AD.
Once the fleet were modified there was never to my knowledge any more issues, although they still required inspection at an increased interval. |
Originally Posted by SamYeager
(Post 10485549)
Never mind, Aeroflot will be able to fly their passengers in the super safe B737 MAX instead...….. :rolleyes:
|
Originally Posted by SamYeager
(Post 10485549)
Never mind, Aeroflot will be able to fly their passengers in the super safe B737 MAX instead...:
Those 41 are not coming back from the dead, like the JAK 42 accident in Jaroslavl (which was pilot error).. Sarcasm is supposed to be the lowest form of humour. I wouldn't be at all suprised if this final nail in the coffin for SSJ was actually nothing to do with the A/c which has its own share of maintenance issues, but some newby who couldn't land an (admitted overweight) plane in circumstances where it was quite likely could have continued with some fun and games - but nevertheless continued to its original destination... Sounds suspiciously like pilot error on this one, nothing whatsoever to do with MAX issues thanks... |
Originally Posted by up_down_n_out
(Post 10485416)
Looks like it's the end of the line for SSJ, next will be the chop, as they are quoting exaggerated figs of a 7 billion funding fig.
People are scared to fly on the thing! What a shame, it's one of the most gorgeous A/c to fly on I have been on in years https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2019/...l-crash-a65850 It's not a bad aircraft to fly on, certainly there's plenty of space in the cabin although I think it was a bit noisy. Any crew I spoke to loved flying them ! It's a pity they never sorted out the spare parts problem or amended the manuals. It's very difficult to operate an aircraft with a very limited MEL and an SRM that contains next to no allowable damage. In addition to that, add in the amount of man-hours required for the routine inspections (most based on calendar date) and the aircraft doesn't really stand a chance in comparison to it's western competitors. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 15:41. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.