Every thing I have tried to do that link fails.
It show a "landing", a big bounce, a second "landing" maybe a small bounce, engine fire on the ground impact, and then a lot of smoek.
It appears that the right engine kept running?
Maybe the right slide deflated slightly?

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

Being in aviation claims I’ve seen my share of lightening strikes on all types of jets(albeit no Russian iron), to the point where they are the most benign claims I see. Not one of those aircraft crashed or so much declared an emergency. It makes me wonder about the design of the Superjet.

cabin baggage lock
 

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.

Lightning strikes are not all created equal. The magnitude of the strike as well as the location (attach point and where it departs the airframe) make a big difference. IF this was lightning related...

If the first bounce caused a leak, perhaps when they bounced the second time, they scraped the runway and sparks caught the leak on fire?

If a terrorist is too stupid to spend 10 seconds on Google, I'm sure he's not smart enough to find Pprune.

None of the points below prove absence of fire before landing; however, in conjunction they give a high probability of that absence.

1. No fire on board reported by crew (COMs seem to have been intermittent, not dead).
2. Timing and character of fire is consistent with a likely scenario of a landing with that much fuel.
3. PAX video made during/shortly after landing suggests no smoke in cockpit prior to conflagration on the outside.

As to the codes - they are, and have been for a long time, so readily and widely available that no one would bother with looking for them on a message board.

One of those videos clearly shows it was NOT on fire prior to touchdown. It bounced/skipped, then came down hard the second time (just like the MD11 in Japan), I surmise the main gear collapsed, ruptured a tank and fuel fire ensued, as there is a flash of flame almost immediately after the second touchdown followed by a large puff of smoke/fuel then it ignited.

I opine (with no more information than the video itself) that prior to the "first" ground contact seen in the video, the aircraft had already touched down once, so "one" then "two" may really have been "two" then "three". Each ground contact was more violent than the preceding one. This has been seen before as an approach flown too fast, the pilot trying to force the plane onto the runway at too fast a speed (perhaps in this case, out of a sense of urgency for being on the ground, rather than in flight with another emergency), and a porpoised landing to destruction as the result. It does not appear that the nose was being held up to slow the plane into a flare.

PIO
 

IMHO

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilot-induced_oscillation

In answer to my earlier question, this 360 walk thought reveals flight crew door opens outwards into main cabin.

Debate on if overwing exits should have been deployed is moot as there are no over wing exits on the model photographed.

https://www.superjetinternational.co...rjet100/cabin/

It does look like an engine was running during the evacuation.

mjb

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.

Exactly, the transponder codes have been published openly without any restriction for at least 34 years by my direct personal observation (actually longer, that's just how long I personally have been seeing it in print) The idea that was some security secret is laughable.

By any measure that landing(s) was a shocker. If both engines were performing adequately well, then there is no excuse for such a landing - lightning strike - or not. It appears that the landing contributed to the start of the fire.

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.

Photograph of the aircraft involved, seen in happier times.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/F...31593)_(2).jpg

This.

A couple of videos and some few sketchy facts are not quite enough to claim that the flight crew performed poorly. Yeah, the landing looks awful, but I have no idea what challenges they were wrestling with. One could just as easily view the video of Al Haynes' landing in Sioux City with no additional information and conclude that he really screwed that one up, when in fact, he did a pretty damn good job considering the hand he was dealt.

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

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.

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.

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 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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

//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.