You are at netAirspace : Forum : Air and Space Forums : Civil Aviation

Aeroflot SSJ100 On Fire At SVO

All about Airlines and Airliners.
 

JLAmber (netAirspace ATC & Founding Member) 05 May 19, 16:50Post
Aeroflot Sukhoi Superjet RA-89098 operating SU1492 SVO - MMK dcelared an emergency and returned to SVO . A passenger in the terminal at SVO recorded this:



Casualties unknown at this time.
A million great ideas...

Amazon.com

First Class members don't see ads. Upgrade!
 
ShanwickOceanic (netAirspace FAA) 05 May 19, 17:26Post
That looks terrifying, especially the way it seems to go up as they come to a stop.

BBC News is reporting "state sources" saying everyone got out. {bugeye}
Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast:
For it is the number of a man; and its number is One hundred threescore and twelve.
Yokes 05 May 19, 18:29Post
airtrainer 05 May 19, 20:09Post
here's another video, that's horrible {cry}

Sir, would you like chicken or pasta ?
Zak (netAirspace FAA) 05 May 19, 21:44Post
Latest reports suggest that 41 people perished in the fire.
Yes, the new EU copyright directive is that stupid.
airtrainer 05 May 19, 22:33Post
FR24 playback.
https://fr24.com/data/aircraft/ra-89098#20671283

RIP {cry}
Sir, would you like chicken or pasta ?
paul mcallister 06 May 19, 22:49Post
Very slow response from the rescue services, it was it`s second attempt to land, you would think they would have resources waiting nearer to the runway.

Also many reports of people taking their carry on bags with them--will people never learn ?
DXing 07 May 19, 12:06Post
Now that the smoke has cleared, so to speak, looks like comms were damaged by a lightning strike immediately after take off. Other, as yet publicly unidentified, failures led to a decision to return to the airport. ATC was evidently not in contact with the flight so no emergency was declared. First attempt to land was aborted due to too much speed creating an unstable approach. Second attempt resulted in a hard landing that collapsed the main landing gear. Fire ensued engulfing the back of the aircraft. Video supports the reports that at least the number 2 engine could not be shut down after landing. Also supports stories of passengers retrieving and carrying their carry on bags out of the aircraft.

Several stories about the aircraft being unable to dump fuel. Does this aircraft even have a fuel jettison system? Seems awful small for that. Also, overweight doesn't necessarily mean a hard landing is inevitable.Be interesting to see what helped cause the landing to go so awry. Finally, while an emergency wasn't declared before landing it still seems like the emergency services response was rather slow even if they were only notified upon landing. But then, where the the plane is in relation to the fire department is unknown to me
What's the point of an open door policy if inside the open door sits a closed mind?
Queso (netAirspace ATC Tower Chief & Founding Member) 07 May 19, 12:29Post
Kudos to the cockpit crew for staying cool and bringing it home. {thumbsup}
This is a Signature Line. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
airtrainer 07 May 19, 21:21Post
DXing wrote: Finally, while an emergency wasn't declared before landing it still seems like the emergency services response was rather slow even if they were only notified upon landing. But then, where the the plane is in relation to the fire department is unknown to me


In this case I would at least expect that the emergency services would be notified after the first landing attempt. {boggled}
Sir, would you like chicken or pasta ?
krowyz 11 May 19, 11:44Post
Another horrible mishap with enormous toll in human lives. Designers and rulemakers cannot afford not learning with its lessons. There's always room (and motivation) to increase crash survivability - in the present case, the fuel tank protection versus the LG failure is candidate to a careful review. Perhaps, the current approach (par. 25.721) can be improved.
paul mcallister 11 May 19, 13:57Post
A system to keep the overhead lockers locked,until the aircraft has been shut down needs to be introduced,and must stricter controls on pax during safety demo`s.
We have all seen people using headphones and various electronic gear during flight safety demo`s.
Cabin crew should be given the power to (if they have not already) demand people switch Off all electronic items and pay 100% Full attention to safety demonstrations.

If pax won`t comply,then remove them from the flight.Zero tolerance.
paul mcallister 11 May 19, 14:00Post
When I say keep the overhead lockers locked,I mean in the case of an emergency,and as a standard practise during final approach,until the aircraft has shut down on stand.

This would be mentioned in the flight safety demo.
ShanwickOceanic (netAirspace FAA) 11 May 19, 14:41Post
krowyz wrote:Another horrible mishap with enormous toll in human lives. Designers and rulemakers cannot afford not learning with its lessons. There's always room (and motivation) to increase crash survivability - in the present case, the fuel tank protection versus the LG failure is candidate to a careful review. Perhaps, the current approach (par. 25.721) can be improved.

We saw in the case of BA38 how that should work. Whether the SSJ is deficient in this regard, or whether they just smacked it in a lot harder and nothing else would have survived either, is an interesting question.

paul mcallister wrote:When I say keep the overhead lockers locked,I mean in the case of an emergency,and as a standard practise during final approach,until the aircraft has shut down on stand.

What would such a system weigh, though, and can that cost be justified?

Personally, I think examples need to be made. We've seen this go on for far too long and, until now, we've been lucky. I would like to see manslaughter charges stick in this case, but I've no doubt they were "distressed" and "not thinking straight" {bored} I'd also like to see the likes of EU, US, etc., agreeing a zero-tolerance approach to future "cases" (see what I did there?). If you come down the slides in a future evacuation and you're clutching a bag, camera, whatever, you get fined based on its weight and dimensions. No questions asked. Yes yes, you can have a blanket in a moment, just come over to the fire truck first and swipe your MasterCard. Or climb back up the slide and put the bag back, your choice. Yes, we told you about the fines in the safety brief. Oh, you weren't listening? Excellent, that's another $1000...
Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast:
For it is the number of a man; and its number is One hundred threescore and twelve.
JLAmber (netAirspace ATC & Founding Member) 11 May 19, 15:59Post
ShanwickOceanic wrote:If you come down the slides in a future evacuation and you're clutching a bag, camera, whatever, you get fined based on its weight and dimensions.


So, if you already have a bag or a camera in hand prior to the incident, you're saying put it down further cluttering the evacuation route? Good luck with that. I prefer Paul's locking overheads idea, with modern actuators you could install a system even for large aircraft with surprisingly little weight compromise.

DXing wrote:Several stories about the aircraft being unable to dump fuel. Does this aircraft even have a fuel jettison system?


The specs show no fuel jettison system. For compliance purposes an airliner needs to take off at no more than 105% of it's maximum landing weight if it doesn't have fuel jettison capabilities, this flight would have been well inside its maximum landing weight for a 900 mile trip. Even in emergencies, there are areas where you can and can't dump fuel and I suspect SVO is a little too close to heavily populated areas.
A million great ideas...
ShanwickOceanic (netAirspace FAA) 11 May 19, 16:47Post
JLAmber wrote:So, if you already have a bag or a camera in hand prior to the incident, you're saying put it down further cluttering the evacuation route? Good luck with that.

That's a good point, and for, say, an evacuation during boarding, I'd be interested to see whether it was quicker to just have everyone bring their stuff out with them. Otherwise: Cameras, OK. Steamer-trunks, not so much. That kind of stupidity kills, so it should hurt enough to discourage it.

JLAmber wrote:I prefer Paul's locking overheads idea, with modern actuators you could install a system even for large aircraft with surprisingly little weight compromise.

I love the idea. I'd back it up with several kV to the handles {mischief} I've seen some pretty tiny motors, but I doubt they'd stand up to having bins slammed on them for long. What sort of thing do you have in mind?

Any failure in that locking system during normal operation is going to snarl up de-boarding, though, and that may not be a cost that airlines are willing to bear.

Plus you'll have to provide the FAs with a tool to spring the locks manually in event of failure. That tool will be available on Amazon about five minutes after it gets issued (see TSA master key). "Be first off your flight every time with this one weird trick!" And then your evacuation changes from an asshat grabbing his rollaboard to an asshat discovering the bin is locked, remembering he has a key, and being *sure* that his keys are *somewhere* in his laptop bag...

As I say, I love the idea, and it's great to hear that it can be done without a significant weight penalty. But the reliability will need to be damn near perfect, and it'll take some ingenuity to overcome human selfishness.
Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast:
For it is the number of a man; and its number is One hundred threescore and twelve.
DXing 12 May 19, 01:50Post
airtrainer wrote:In this case I would at least expect that the emergency services would be notified after the first landing attempt. {boggled}


With no communications available..and given the aircraft turned away from the field several miles from the threshold, the tower may not have even been aware what the problem was or that the captain had elected to return to the field. This is where a dispatcher really comes in handy. More than a few times I've called ATC to let them know there was a mechanical/medical problem and a flight was most likely going to return to the field.

JLAmber wrote:
DXing wrote:Several stories about the aircraft being unable to dump fuel. Does this aircraft even have a fuel jettison system?


The specs show no fuel jettison system. For compliance purposes an airliner needs to take off at no more than 105% of it's maximum landing weight if it doesn't have fuel jettison capabilities, this flight would have been well inside its maximum landing weight for a 900 mile trip. Even in emergencies, there are areas where you can and can't dump fuel and I suspect SVO is a little too close to heavily populated areas.


Not sure about that...900 mile trip, plus reserves, maybe an alternate...aircraft about 80-90% full, then you immediately turn around to land after takeoff, I would be surprised if he was below landing weight at that point. I believe the captain was quoted as saying they came in expecting an overweight landing, the loss of systems onboard preventing them from circling to burn off fuel.
What's the point of an open door policy if inside the open door sits a closed mind?

Amazon.com

First Class members don't see ads. Upgrade!
 
 

Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

LEFT

RIGHT
CONTENT