Originally Posted by liider
(Post 10463830)
Hard landing video, finally https://twitter.com/KFM936/status/1125124009597788160
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? |
Originally Posted by Flapwing
(Post 10463993)
Apparently the crew squawked 7500 (comm fail) followed by 7700 (emergency)... and from the video earlier the aircraft was not on fire until it "bounced" on the landing probably compromising fuel cells with the failed MLG...
|
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.
|
Originally Posted by evansb
(Post 10464015)
The Sukhoi Superjet has been in service for several years, so I am quite certain it has survived its share of lightning strikes without serious incident.
So many factors, and so much speculation...but hey, that is what this forum is all about, although let us keep it professional. |
Originally Posted by jack11111
(Post 10463965)
I don't see flames until second bounce. Do others here agree?
|
Originally Posted by evansb
(Post 10464007)
By the way, thanks for telling the entire non-flying terrorist community what '7500' means. Any other security codes you wish to share globally? |
Originally Posted by evansb
(Post 10464007)
Not on fire before the landing? How do you know? Just because flames were not visible when the aircraft was on approach doesn't mean there wasn't smoke in the cockpit.
By way, thanks for telling the entire non-flying terrorist community what '7500' means. Any other security codes you wish to share globally? 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. |
Boeing and Airbus main wheels are designed to detach and not penetrate fuel tanks, if overloaded or stressed beyond limits. Do Sukhoi have similar design?? |
Someone should have spotted that burning aircraft on approach and raised some alarms you would have thought. |
It bounced/skipped, then came down hard the second time |
PIO
|
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.
|
Originally Posted by jugofpropwash
(Post 10464022)
If a terrorist is too stupid to spend 10 seconds on Google, I'm sure he's not smart enough to find Pprune.
|
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.
|
Originally Posted by Bushbuck
(Post 10464076)
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.
|
Photograph of the aircraft involved, seen in happier times.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/F...31593)_(2).jpg |
Originally Posted by 7574ever
(Post 10464080)
Perhaps flight control issues? It’s easy to say that when you haven’t had to confront the situation yourself... 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. |
All times are GMT. The time now is 01:24. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.