Looks like a bounce followed by a hard landing;

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 ?

I don't want to turn this into a discussion about Russia, but the Russian space programme relies on Soviet-made rockets and technologies. All that stuff is around 50 years old and very reliable, that's why it has been working, up until recently when rockets started to fall one after another. An engineer earns around 25K roubles (400 bucks) to assemble space components, same goes to guys assembling the SSJ. What sort of quality can you expect?

That might slow people even more, as they are feverishly trying to open a locked compartment. Especially if a few have opened due to impact, but not "theirs", the ones with valuable duty-free, inside.

Thanks for this, Saddath.

I'd like to add that emergency evacuation goes against everything passengers have been 'trained' to do over years of flying as pax. We're taught that it's vital we are submissive and quiet. We queue between the ribbons, obediently. We empty our belongings into a tray, obediently. We wait until our seat row is ready to board, obediently. We present our documentation, obediently. We sit in our assigned seats, obediently. We fasten our seatbelts, obediently. We restore our seats to the upright position, obediently. We switch off our electronic devices, obediently. We collect our hand-luggage and leave by the indicated exit, obediently.

We know the routine off by heart, and we know that we have to accept the routine and adjust ourselves to minor changes such as leaving by stairs and bus instead of air-bridge..

We fail to watch the safety drill, because we've seen it several hundred times before, and it's designed cleverly to suggest that it's an exercise in box-ticking. The airline absolutely doesn't want you to think that flying is dangerous, and they especially don't want you to think that flying with THIS airline is more dangerous than with others.

Passengers don't get trained for emergencies, like crew. We have no muscle memory, we are all startle factor. Even with flames and smoke, the cabin crew screaming unfamiliar instructions instead of "Take care when opening the overhead lockers..." may not compute.

Airlines WANT docile, unthinking passengers. If we didn't tacitly agree to be docile and unthinking, airlines would go bust.

In the video taken from right front, the smoke does not start coming from the cockpit windows and RF door until approx 1:40 after the aircraft stops. The people who escape during the 1st 60 secs generally get up from the bottom of the slide and walk/run away. In the remaining 40 secs the very few that use the slide stay collapsed at the bottom, or walk away and collapse. If the smoke from the door indicates the interior finally caught fire, it was all over well before then due heat/smoke/fumes.

Icarus2001
 

Based on what I've experienced mainly in Europe over 50 years, heavy jets, light aircraft, gliders and ultalights. (Even paragliders with wind shear below 40ft).

And to answer wrt TDZ and SOP; specific bomb threat, slow spooling up low bypass, positive wind shear at low level, rotor, significant terrain in the overshoot, low fuel and running out of flight control authority..all realistic possibilities that I've come across when how to correctly handle a bounce is essential.
From one of the videos it shows the aircraft is pitched nose down after the first bounce and at the last moment pitched up which would have rotated the gear into the runway.

Certainly an interesting interpretation of the video, meanwhile : aircraft stops moving at time 1:43, first vehicle parks up next to aircraft at 2:24, 41 seconds later . . .

Fd

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).

Early this morning it was stated this was an immediate return to land, due to control difficulties experienced by the crew after take off (no fuel dump) The plane was said to have been hit by lightning shortly after take off - maybe disabling the radio, comms, and other systems, reported Russia's Interfax news agency.

The reported first attempt to land ended in a GA due aircraft too fast and high, (need confirmation of this GA) and the second landing was sadly very fast & unstable, baulked and control was lost - hard landing, one or both main gears collapsed and huge split fuel fire erupted during the long ground slide.
(aircraft seemingly NOT on fire prior to landing)
Flats and LE slats were deployed for the Landing.

Overhead bins did not seem to fall down, or open on the heavy landing from video evidence.

Rear exits both unusable - no over-wing exits fitted to this type - EVAC signal and chimes heard in pax video, EVAC was from from doors 1L and 1R (amazing that the 1L slide survived the fire)
Any over-wing exits fitted may anyway have been breached/unusable by the ferocity of the fire up to midships.

Fire services were not on scene immediately to provide foam over the serious fuel fire, but were in situ whilst the EVAC was still in progress.

The cross wind did blow the fire back away from the mid and forward fuselage, allowing exit from both forward doors. But the fire was very close, or even under door 1L.

The rear flight attendant remained on board assisting everyone to try to be evacuated but he died in the fire, unable to open the rear doors.

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.

Just a thought, (my name is after all A. Muse). Why not save weight and expense by not installing overhead lockers in the first place?

There was no-first attempt and GA, look at the FR24 trace posted multiple times in this thread

Appreciated, comment was more to demonstrate that with the distances involved and the variability of the situation, practically there will always be delays and not insubstantial ones.

open hat racks - we done it before
 

Really? It will never catch on...

https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....13bebe60e6.jpg
DC-8 KLM 1960's
Photo c airliners.net

Thanks and yes indeed I have followed the thread - Just that various reports say that this was a 2nd attempt at a landing - FR24 can play up too?

Thanks for confirmations.

Likewise the only widebody manufacturer never to have had a passenger fatality on one of their large aircraft is ... Ilyushin.

Not quite true. I was in Luxemburg in 1982 and a IL-62 crashed there , there were fatalities .
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)

I had this other idea for long time, wonder what the comments here would be. The OVHD bins on my A/C have a manufacturer's max loading limit. I presume from crashworthiness anyway. So how about we divide the number of racks times loading by the number of passenger seats and make a weight rule for onboard luggage? Small items (purses, cameras, laptops) and dutyfree to go under the seats. I think the overall amount of items carried would be about half.

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.

Many flights used to enforce a 7kg limit. Years back I flew from PER to CCK and my carry on was weighed at 7.5 kg. I was told to take the Sunday newspaper out of the bag and carry it under my arm, as that would be OK!

I believe that the Il-62 was single aisle, thus not considered a widebody.

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' "

Go to twitter website and append Ozkok_/status/1125122006674964480 at the end of the address line.

Try the RT version of the "bounce" footage:

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.

Thruster763, the SSJ was certified to EASA standards, so on paper at least it met those same requirements.

As we currently have no idea what the impact load was it is impossible to speculate on another types ability to survive the same.

I, for one, will not entrust my laptop to hold baggage. I've seen loaders (I used to be a dispatcher). So this will never happen. 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.

And being just 30 seconds behind, if there had been a fire, the foam cannon would have started before they arrived. Look at the video today, foam everywhere but on the fire for at least 30 seconds.

"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.