PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Rumours & News (https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news-13/)
-   -   Sheremetyevo Superjet 100 in flames (https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/621198-sheremetyevo-superjet-100-flames.html)

sb_sfo 6th May 2019 22:51

Originally Posted by dmwalker https://www.pprune.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif
Sorry to add one more comment about baggage. I haven't flown for years now but I remember 30-40 years ago the size standard was enforced, at least at my local airport CYYZ. There was a metal rectangle representing the width and height of the space under the seat and, if your hand baggage couldn't pass through it, you had to check it in to the baggage hold, even directly from the departure gate. Was that not universally enforced at that time?

dmwalker, Your experience was before they started stuffing IFE seat boxes under the seats, which ate up most of the free space.

suninmyeyes 6th May 2019 22:56

Sandy78 wrote

34 years since the Manchester accident, smokehoods might have helped a few of the passengers get out. Thoughts?
It’s a fair question. However in the Moscow accident some of those who got out might not have got out if they had stopped to put on smoke hoods. If you have ever had to put on a smoke hood and go through a smoke filled mock up fuselage it is a pretty unpleasant experience. Wearing a smoke mask is very claustrophobic, limits your vision and can induce panic in some people. In most cases you would be better off to keep low to the floor without a smoke hood and make a dash for it. I doubt the people in the back of that Superjet would have survived even if they had been wearing smoke hoods.

cooperplace 6th May 2019 22:59

I've posted this suggestion before: education of passengers could help. A slick animated movie could show: (i) everyone smoothly & quickly evacuating, no-one pausing for luggage, and the cabin being consumed with flames just as the last person leaves, and in contrast (ii) lots of people pausing to wrestle with heavy carry-on, and the last 41 stick figures are trapped in the flames. If this was included in every safety video, people might learn. There should also be advice to keep your passport, wallet, valuable personal papers, etc, on your person.

Also, airlines and/or aircraft manufacturers could simulate actual evacuations, with real people, in the above two scenarios, and publish the difference in evacuation time. Once people realize that their self-interest depends on leaving carry-on behind, they will get the message.

Ranger One 6th May 2019 23:02

I'll make just one observation at this stage, pertinent to the evac.

A 'landing' hard enough to punch the MLG legs through the wings, and compromise the tanks, may very well have left some pax, especially in the rear of the aircraft, sufficiently injured or concussed as to be incapable of prompt self-evacuation. Or at least it wouldn't surprise me if this proves to be a factor, once investigated.

apatity2 6th May 2019 23:04

Here in Russia we have it live on the tv now. They are discussing it with some experts present. They just played a phone interview with the PIC of that flight. According to him the fire started only after landing. Also, there was a lightning strike that somehow had an effect on the equipment, namely: radio intermitten, the controls switched to direct law... The experts commented on the direct law that the pilots had to manually fly very sensitive controls: pedals, joystick, trim i.e. pitch, roll, yaw.

Now, normally anyone (meaning pilots) would "take a break" and go away flying some circles to catch up and digest, get used to the controls, rehears the landing, regroup, take some breath, also burn some fuel and do the checklists- and pilots are all trained to do that and it is only natural to them (all human kind)...

Unless one is stuck in IMC with a dodgy panel especially in bumpy TS weather ride. Or glitchy navigation computer and unreliable comms in the super busy Moscow airspace and no ground in sight. Or the signs that conditions getting worse and crew suspicions (the arse feeling) provoked by electric fire smell (from the lightning), structural hit (one of the experts also remembered from the past a lightning severed the wing tip on one of the flights and burned the radar dome on another flight, and they did not know that until got on the ground). Any of this would mandate pilot to land without a delay, as the latter is considered (in all pilot books I read) more deadly than overspeed/overweight. So they must had these reasons, unfortunately they did not include that from the PIC.

So they bounced it, who didn't? They had too many balls to juggle (we already know) and had to drop some.

My main questions: was there anything else we don't know that made them out of time and if the gear can be stronger?

lomapaseo 6th May 2019 23:53


Originally Posted by Ranger One (Post 10464965)
I'll make just one observation at this stage, pertinent to the evac.

A 'landing' hard enough to punch the MLG legs through the wings, and compromise the tanks, may very well have left some pax, especially in the rear of the aircraft, sufficiently injured or concussed as to be incapable of prompt self-evacuation. Or at least it wouldn't surprise me if this proves to be a factor, once investigated.

It would seem that those directly over the wing box would receive the sharpest jolt.

The passengers in the aft are affected more by the wind driven fire and any breech either as a burn-though or an open door letting the smoke in.

To me it's a survivable event in G loads and if you egress before the fire burns through or somebody opens a door and lets the smoke and fire inside

2unlimited 6th May 2019 23:57

I am more concerned why the crew did not initiate a Go Around after the initial bounce. It does seem the aircraft was capable of flying from the videos we have seen.

tdracer 7th May 2019 00:16


Originally Posted by Thruster763 (Post 10464804)
Lightning protection is ever evolving and as said earlier new construction techniques like carbon composite are a challenge. Electronic devices (inside equipment) are also using smaller geometries and lower voltages potentially making them more vulnerable. Even existing standards are subject to review and change.

The acceptable lightning voltage transients that must be accounted for (and tested) are different for carbon composite - the 787 had to meet (IIRC) 2/3rd higher induced voltage transients than for a conventional aluminum airframe. The size or type of electronic device is immaterial - it needs to be tested and demonstrate it can withstand the appropriate lightning transients - this applies to every critical and essential system on the aircraft. Otherwise it shouldn't be on the aircraft.
So my original point stands - If a lightning strike caused multiple systems to fail, making the aircraft dangerously difficult to fly and land, it's critically important that we know why. Because it either means the requirements are wrong, the testing was wrong, or the implementation was wrong. If was the implementation, it points to a problem with Sukhoi and the Superjet. If it was the way it was tested, we need to refine the testing standards (and make sure they are complied with). If it's the requirements, we have a big problem that could potentially impact thousands of aircraft and the industry as a whole.
Honest question, does the Superjet use significant carbon composite structure? I thought it was fairly conventional aluminum construction.

visibility3miles 7th May 2019 00:49

It is possible the people in the front of the plane didn't look aft once the plane headed back to its starting point.

If the fire started on landing after a fuel tank was ruptured, the people in front probably didn't have a clue about the seriousness of the situation.

They may have been locked into the mindset of, "Let me grab my bags as we prepare to get off."

Yes, in this case such delays undoubtably cost lives, but it seems like passengers were streaming out of the front exits as soon as possible.

Passengers DO NOT train for this. The safety briefing never says, "Flee for your lives at all costs!"

Doing so would lead to panic, which is worse.

etrang 7th May 2019 01:15


Originally Posted by rab-k (Post 10464760)
ANO should be amend to state that pax attempting to retrieve, or who succeed in exiting the cabin accompanied by, cabin baggage during an emergency evacuation will be subject to criminal proceedings, which may result in a fine and/or custodial sentence.

If I had a loved one perish in such circumstances, and saw footage of at least one individual lumbering across the tarmac with a bag which appeared to be of max weight/dimensions, as can be seen the footage of this incident, I'd be looking to "have words".

This would make absolutely no difference at all to people's behavior in an emergency. 99.9% of pax have no idea what the laws governing air travel are. Punishing someone after the event may make you feel better but will have absolutely no chance of saving lives.

anotheruser 7th May 2019 01:26


Originally Posted by BristolScout (Post 10464928)
demanding changes to baggage configuration on the basis of one accident is not rational

I would agree with that if it were true.

There have been so many evacuations delayed due to passengers grabbing their overhad luggage in which by pure luck everyone survived. Many have warned for years that this is a disaster waiting to happen. Now we've had the disaster and people start saying "but it's just one case".

The logic behind that is: For years we've made the experience that overhead luggage is a safety threat in evacuations, but people always said, well it's just a theoretical threat because so far nothing really bad has happened. Now we've had the really bad thing happening, but people say, well it's just one case. How many such cases do we need? When it's happened a hundred times, people will say, why bother, we're used to it?

ZFT 7th May 2019 01:46

Overhead baggage 'rules' exist. Problem is the airlines don't adhere to them (they want minimal check in bags to minimise turnarounds etc..) and thus neither do the pax. The maximum size and weight are nearly always displayed at check in and at the gate, yet rarely are the large wheelies challenged.

The airlines can stop this issue very easily should they so desire.

Blade Master 7th May 2019 02:26

Video showing entire landing. Starts at about 9 seconds in on far right of screen. Seems to show many more bounces.



Toruk Macto 7th May 2019 02:50

If a single airline clamps down on oversize cabin baggage they will have a %10 drop in business the following week as people take their trolley bag to the next cheapest LCC who has not clamped down .
Airport authority employed security with appropriate attitude, size and weigh every carry on bag at gate . Take it out of hands of airline .

abgd 7th May 2019 03:00

Why not compulsorily destroy any luggage which people take out with them in these emergency situations? That way, the people who have enough wits to know what they are doing will leave their luggage alone in the hope of getting it back later and the people who are scared witless will be punished leniently.

GunpowderPlod 7th May 2019 03:28


Originally Posted by anotheruser (Post 10465010)
I would agree with that if it were true.

There have been so many evacuations delayed due to passengers grabbing their overhad luggage in which by pure luck everyone survived. Many have warned for years that this is a disaster waiting to happen. Now we've had the disaster and people start saying "but it's just one case".

The logic behind that is: For years we've made the experience that overhead luggage is a safety threat in evacuations, but people always said, well it's just a theoretical threat because so far nothing really bad has happened. Now we've had the really bad thing happening, but people say, well it's just one case. How many such cases do we need? When it's happened a hundred times, people will say, why bother, we're used to it?

Surely over the decades there has been enough wailing and gnashing of teeth over this and the airline industry needs to get a grip.

I would suggest that all airlines be required to fit an emergency overhead luggage locking system to prevent evacuating passengers accessing the lockers and fatally delaying emergency exit.

jugofpropwash 7th May 2019 03:51


Originally Posted by 2unlimited (Post 10464978)
I am more concerned why the crew did not initiate a Go Around after the initial bounce. It does seem the aircraft was capable of flying from the videos we have seen.

If the first bounce poked a hole in the fuel tanks and started a leak, would trying to go around have made things worse (would it have caught fire in the air, rather than on the ground)?


mickjoebill 7th May 2019 03:53


I fear the brave guy who went back up the slide did so to try to unblock a logjam of struggling bodies and baggage blocking the aisle
This could explain why flight crew used the cockpit window rather than flight deck door.
The flight deck door opens outward into the passenger cabin and so would be blocked had a person collapsed...
​​​​​​​
mjb

TPE Flyer 7th May 2019 04:21


Originally Posted by cooperplace (Post 10464962)
I've posted this suggestion before: education of passengers could help. A slick animated movie could show: (i) everyone smoothly & quickly evacuating, no-one pausing for luggage, and the cabin being consumed with flames just as the last person leaves, and in contrast (ii) lots of people pausing to wrestle with heavy carry-on, and the last 41 stick figures are trapped in the flames. If this was included in every safety video, people might learn.

You have obviously never worked in Asia, (China & India) in particular.
They couldn't care less about a slick animated video. They only care about themselves. And it is not tunnel vision, it is selfishness.
As a pax last night, I watched a Chinese woman climb over the 2 passengers beside her to then push her way through the crowded isle to get to the front and get off the plane. Only to be waiting at the top of the aerobridge for her friends. Just fuc&?ing RUDE!
So in an emergency, as long as SHE gets her luggage, that is all that will matter.
LOCK THE OVERHEAD BINS.

SquintyMagoo 7th May 2019 04:59

This story also teases "pilots without proper qualifications" as a cause, but gives no detail.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ane-crash.html

bsieker 7th May 2019 05:18


Originally Posted by rab-k (Post 10464927)
Overweight?

Very unlikely for a short-haul airliner. They usually can land at maximum takeoff weight (or very slightly less) without any problems to allow very short hops without the need to refuel at every stop. And even larger types, which have a maximum landing weight significantly lower than maximum takeoff weight, can perform a safe overweight landing, but require an inspection afterwards.

Bernd

568 7th May 2019 05:18


Originally Posted by 2unlimited (Post 10464978)
I am more concerned why the crew did not initiate a Go Around after the initial bounce. It does seem the aircraft was capable of flying from the videos we have seen.

UPS tried a GA in DXB, didn't make it!

armchairpilot94116 7th May 2019 05:29

My couple of pennies:

1. Miracle anyone survived after the fire broke out, it was very intense.
2. Even if no one carried out any bags some people would have died due to the fire being so intense.
3. Bags most likely did impede the evacuation and very possibly more lives would have been saved had there been a faster evac.
4. It will take a govt mandate to reverse the current situation of larger and larger bins for larger and larger take on bags. Many airlines charge passengers to check in even one bag. No small amount either. Overhead bins should be made to be very tiny. Only very small briefcases, ladies handbags and the such should be allowed on board. We all know how much faster passengers can board and be seated if they didn't have all those bags with them. Which really don't belong in the cabin. It belongs in the cargo hold. And of course human nature dictates people will try to get their bags and take them with them. You simply can not stop this , will be like stopping the tide from coming in. Even in a full blown emergency. Physically stop them taking onboard large bags will the the only solution.
5. Looked like a fairly normal approach but hard first tire contact. After which the airplane seemed to gain some height as if intending to go around. Which is said to be the only correct thing to do after a bounce. In one of the vids it seemed the plane made hard contact , lifted off quite steeply and gained a bit of altitude then nosed down and made harder second contact after which fire could be seen.

babybaby 7th May 2019 05:57

I’m wondering if severity of first touchdown, which I’m not sure is what is in video(s), may have been compounded by the effect of direct law and closing thrust levers of low slung engines prior to touchdown resulting in a pitch down (if that’s what they had).

I’ve flown 737-300 and A320. The effect on pitch of changing thrust on the former was instinctive as it was always effectively in Direct Law.

The Sioux City UA DC-10 reports cited the effect of reducing thrust prior to touchdown as contributory to the hard landing (notwithstanding the brilliant job they did with the cards they were dealt).

MrsDoubtfire 7th May 2019 06:59

The Daily Mail from today. A lot of videos and pics, a FA who speaks from hail, and a pax demands refund immediately....!!
Quote FA:
'I kicked the door out with my leg and pushed out the passengers so as not to slow the evacuation. Just to hurry them up I grabbed each of them by the collar from the back.
'It was all so quick. The smoke was already black. The last people were crawling to get out.
'Everyone had jumped from their seats and moved forwards, although the plane was still moving at a good speed. I saw the first woman calling somebody on her phone and saying, we are on fire, we are falling down.'
She said there was a heavy hail storm moment after takeoff from the international airport, before the plane was struck by lightning.'There was a flash followed by popping. A bright light flash,' she said. 'We took off and got into a cloud and it was hailing. There was such a noise outside [as hail hit the plane]. 'At that moment it was a popping, mainly on the ….left side… Everyone was looking at me looked at me. There was popping and a flash, like an electric flash.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ane-crash.html

andrasz 7th May 2019 07:12


Originally Posted by rab-k (Post 10464927)
Overweight?

In Russian media there are rumors it was one ton overweight (MTOW ~45t MLAW 41t) which should have very little impact if any on handling.

Super VC-10 7th May 2019 07:16

Fat pax and luggage.:mad:

https://metro.co.uk/2019/05/07/overw...ed-41-9423036/

Espada III 7th May 2019 07:26

Some items must come with you
 
Emergency evacuation off a plane in some countries leaving ID and money on the plane will see you banged up until they identify you (USA).

I also need my cables to charge phones to be in contact with family. I don't always wear a jacket when flying.

So reduce hand luggage to an over the chest bag which can be taken down the slide without issue.

Ferpe 7th May 2019 07:48

Landing bounce most probably caused by PIO
 
When I saw the bounce video I immediately thought they were in direct law. This is now confirmed by the Russian interviews with the Pilot. The SSJ FBW is very good according to pilots I've spoken with. It's flight laws gives you a responsive but well-damped aircraft to fly. The computers regulate the stick to movables gearing and damping dependent on the flight situation. This is all gone in Direct law. You are flying an aircraft which is now responding directly 1:1 to stick and pedal movements, no gearing, no damping, no corrections.

This surprises the pilot on short final when he shall start the flare IMO as he could only have flown Direct Law in simulator training and then not much. He is most likely in PIO (Pilot Induced Oscillation) from short final, overcorrecting through the flare and then further on. It's difficult to stop a PIO once it has started. When you feel you don't have the aircraft responding as you want your muscles stiffen up as adrenalin pumps and this increases the PIO probability. The way to stop PIO is to let go of the stick for a second and come back with a softer arm but this is not what the Pilot can or dare to do in his situation. I guess the Direct Law fulfills the certification requirements as these are relaxed for an emergency backup mode. But one shall perhaps re-evaluate it's gearing.

RetiredBA/BY 7th May 2019 09:03

Hard to believe, understand why, that BA allows hand baggage weighing up to 23 kilos, 50 pounds, generous in the extreme BUT not good in an emergency evacuation knowing how some pax, behave in such a situation.

The video of the 777 evac shows some pax bring off “hand baggage” what looked like suitcases !

slatterri 7th May 2019 09:57

There has been a lot of professionally understandable indignation in this thread about passengers who stop to pick up their cabin baggage before fleeing a burning plane. To well informed professionals this seems an almost criminal act but I have two points I would like to gently make.
1.) When any statistical cross section of humanity regularly makes a decision that seems stupid it may not be the people who are to blame but the system. It's probably bucking human nature.
2.) The airline business as a whole shares a lot of the blame. They aren't getting the message across and they're not really trying.

The issue is that there is a conflict in the industry brain between marketing and safety. No one selling a BA (say) airline seat is going to lead with what is critical to life during a crash, they sell the sunshine. Yes there is a flight safety briefing but it's all friendly and jolly. The result, when a serious problem does occur, is denial. Even when faced with death passengers don't realise. That is how they come to make apparently stupid decisions. Castigating passengers is too easy a blame game. My suspicion is that as mentioned in the thread, the most likely fix for this is to lock the overhead lockers during flight.

mickjoebill 7th May 2019 10:01


Originally Posted by Super VC-10 (Post 10465142)

He is pictured carrying a bulging carry on and looks like he managed to collect his jacket and cap on the way to the slide.


mjb

gearlever 7th May 2019 10:06

From the above article (Metro)


The crew reportedly did not dump any fuel..

Fuel dump system on SU-95?

2unlimited 7th May 2019 10:09


Originally Posted by mickjoebill (Post 10465254)


He is pictured carrying a bulging carry on and looks like he managed to collect his jacket and cap on the way to the slide.


mjb

Russia have a place for people like him, I believe it's close to Siberia.

His dudeness 7th May 2019 10:16


Originally Posted by TPE Flyer (Post 10465068)
LOCK THE OVERHEAD BINS.

Which will result in a lot of people feverishly trying to open them and then no one will get out. Brilliant idea - not.

BEagle 7th May 2019 10:42

Over the years, passengers have been getting larger and seat pitch ever smaller. But according to Sukhoi, the Superjet 100 has around 32" seat pitch in 2+3 for most economy class seating - which is far more generous than the absurdly cramped 180 seat 3+3 configuration Lufthansa use in the A320neo.

So it's not just passengers grabbing luggage which could impede an evacuation, it's the difficulty some would have in even trying to get out of cramped seats in the first place.

If more airlines reduce cabin baggage allowance, there is every chance that many airports won't be able to cope with additional baggage loading and unloading. More luggage will get lost or damaged - which is probably why may passengers now try to avoid checking in the luggage. On short trips with Lufthansa, I now use a 'cabin trolley' which I bought from them as it is advertised as being compliant with their cabin baggage allowances; I always check that it is within their 8 kg allowance. It goes in the overhead locker, whereas my passport, tickets, phone and car keys remain in my pockets.

But do other passengers ensure that they comply with the rules? Absolutely not, going by the number of 'aeroplane mountaineers' one sees struggling down the aisles with their bergens.

I hope that Vladimir Putin will decorate the brave cabin attendant who did such sterling work with a suitable award.

rcsa 7th May 2019 10:52

In truth, I find this collective outrage about pax exiting with their belongings rather odd. Everyone who travels regularly knows that checking in a bag is a form of roulette. Maybe it will come round the carousel at the other end, maybe it won't. Maybe it will be broken open, maybe it will go to Burkina Faso, maybe it will just be smashed up. No one likes to come off a long flight only to stand by the carousel for an hour waiting for a suitcase to be unloaded.

So everyone carries the essentials with them as hand luggage. For me, 'essentials' is ideally what I can live on for a week - clothes, gym kit, a spare pair of shoes, wash bag, laptop and associated electronics, etc etc.

As long as the airlines let me board with 12kg + in a trolley bag, of course I will try to do that. But I fly 50 - 100 legs a year, so I reckon one day I'll be in an accident, and I have evolved a few little habits. I travel in a jacket, which I keep on during take off and landing, with my phone, wallet, and passports in the jacket. I also keep my shoes on for take off and landing, and try to sit as close to the front as I can. I keep back-ups of my laptop in three different locations, and anyway of course most of the key info is sync'd to my phone.

I like to think, therefore, that I wouldn't try to grab my trolley bag on the way out in an emergency. But I know many fellow passengers would, so I also visualise how it will be to knee 'em in the nethers and smack 'em in the head with my elbows as I clamber over them and their bags on the way to the exit. Any violent act is easier if you've already thought it through in advance.

As many have noted above, airlines would rather you carried hand luggage than check bags in - it's cheaper and makes for faster turn-around times. Airlines are no more likely to use scary safety videos than are car manufacturers or gun manufacturers - despite cars and guns killing a thousand times more people in the US every year than aircraft do. So pax will carry hand luggage, and pax will try to take hand luggage with them when they exit - in an emergency or not.

Short version - when push comes to shove, you better be prepared to push and shove harder than the next man.

dead_pan 7th May 2019 11:15


Originally Posted by His dudeness (Post 10465277)
Which will result in a lot of people feverishly trying to open them and then no one will get out. Brilliant idea - not.

I'm guessing the poster was thinking that the cabin crew would lock and unlock the overhead storage. Pretty pointless otherwise.

meleagertoo 7th May 2019 11:31


Originally Posted by His dudeness (Post 10465277)
Which will result in a lot of people feverishly trying to open them and then no one will get out. Brilliant idea - not.

Do we often find people 'feverishly trying to get into' occupied lavatories? Aren't locked doors a fairly well-understood principle?
That's a very far-fetched and unrealistic argument. People understand that if a locker is locked because they've been told so, be it in a brief or with a red light by the handle that there isn't any point trying. Any that did try would surely give up in a couple of seconds.

Then even unimaginative ones like Espada will learn to put passport, cards and other esssentials (a mobile phone is NOT an essential, let alone charging cables!) in their pockets instead of overhead which is surely what most sensible travellers do already.

jantar99 7th May 2019 11:31

There is a genuine report of a surviving passenger in one of Russian web forums. It is compiled into one post here (still in Russian).

My translation:

Hi all, I was a passenger on this flight. A couple of explanations:
- ppl with suitcases are from business class. Their bags were not large and didn't impede anyone.
- there was no jam [of passengers]. One woman fell down in the aisle, she was quickly lifted up and pushed out.
- behind the 12th row almost nobody sirvived [one survivor climbed the chairs alongside standing ppl, he's in hospital - translator's comment] - you could've noticed no slides at the back. Did'nt deploy. And even if they did, there was scorching heat. Most of them died in a moment.
- oxigen masks didn't deploy. At most 3-4 on the right side.
- FF and other emergency services arrived quickly. But even if late, there was nobody to rescue.
- despite overall mess and lack of coordination, all casualties were attended to, supported, given food and there was even vodka - just one bottle, but at least smth

As for how quickly the AC burns, I didn't expect that it birns like a plastic cup. Momentarily. Windows in my row [12 a,c - two seats on theleft side] melted even before we stopped

As for survival - there was a moment of luck and no panic. Breathe in the black smoke once and one wouldn't get up. Given there is no visibility, nobody will go to rescue him - can't see him. Impossible to breathe.
There were no full-face masks on the plane or they couldn't be found.

It's remarkable that the LG almost dampened the blow. It was jolty but not critically. In fact almost all pax sat until the AC stopped. At least those whom I saw from my row.

Smone wrote that ppl might not have been fastened and lost consciousness from the blow - ther was not such a blow. All was tolerable. And I don't think that seatbelts in a plane prevent you from heating the front seat with your head.
Author's seats:


Row 12 seat A, my wife C [she survived]

I was the last one to leave [below he explains he crouched then crawled], there were no ppl behind me from aft rows

I can't explain why almost all behind row 12 died, I can guess. First, they might hurry to the nearest exit - aft ones. Second, they might burn in the flame from the wing. Those in front rows who didn't make it - carbon monoxide. Breathe in twice and you're done.
There's a lot more in Russian. This translation ends just before the phrase


По поводу того, руководили ли бортпроводники:


All times are GMT. The time now is 23:47.


Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.