Rokkarolla wrote:

The pilot of the Sukhoi Superjet 100 Denis Evdokimov told why he decided to deploy the liner back to Sheremetyevo: according to him, the plane was struck by lightning. It is reported by telegram channel Baza.

After a lightning strike, radio communication was turned off and equipment malfunctions began, the pilot continued. "At the time of landing — time will not tell you, the take-off was at 18:02 — there was no radio. Managed to restore using the emergency frequency on the radio. And it was short and intermittent. After switching on the mode of the transmitter a few words could be said, then it disappeared. And it had to be reconnected. The dispatchers helped us. They gave us a course for the output on the strip. The speed was small for landing, normal. All according to the operational collection of the crew", — said Evdokimov.

He added that the plane was approaching the ground "smoothly, with a decrease in vertical speed." And only after a complete stop of the liner on the ground was declared an emergency evacuation

That sounds as if he thought it was a rather normal landing, electrical malfunctions aside. He didnt admit that they performed a very, very bad landing? Very strange.

Yep, I am not about to blame anyone, but the explanations seem to be weird after watching video above

na wrote:

Otherwise such a bad landing in good weather cannot be explained.

It’s certainly bizarre. If the airplane was flyable enough to do a stable low approach, one could reasonably assume it was flyable enough to land properly. It would seem they either had a cascading systems failure that resulted in controllability issues, or they simply failed to cope with the high speed/overweight landing. I don’t believe I’ve ever seen a landing quite like that.

AtomicGarden wrote:

SEU wrote:

Rokkarolla wrote:

https://youtu.be/RMwJkZ7QLY4

Anyone already posted this landing footage?

No its brand new.....

No it's not, i saw it yesterday. And people are still saying it was already in flames? I'm no expert but hard to think that the fire was caused by anything but the hard landing/bouncing.

He was being sarcastic. The same videos get posted over and over, just like the news updates get posted over and over.

F9Animal wrote:

By the time that plane came to a stop, the rear was already engulfed. Those in the rear and over wing exits had no chance of being able to utilize them. With how raging those flames were, one has to wonder how soon the smoke entered the cabin?

In the first video of inside the cabin viewing out the right side of the aircraft, you can see smoke wisping along the ceiling literally right after coming to a stop. It wasn't billowing black yet but it was starting.

MartijnNL wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Having been in a burning building a few times and in an airplane, why anyone would want to stick around for any longer than it takes them to run away is beyond me. An airplane on fire is no place to delay evacuating.

Maybe some people stick around, because they are trying to save others?

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

I do hope they throw the book at any responsible. And, if you’re between me and the exit of burning run or be kicked in the ass by size 9 boots.

What good will throwing the book bring? Can't we just learn from accidents? And, luckily I am not between you and a fire. We would probably get in a fight, because of your aggressive behaviour.

I think the dialogue was in response to people stopping to get their luggage, not fighting people who were trying to save others. When someone commented about people grabbing their possessions, he simply posited that having been in such situations he didn't understand why someone would want to stick around? Of course people will react strangely/differently at times - that's when you sort of have to take matters into your own hands or let everyone behind you die because you wanted to be polite.

If everyone sitting on the windows side of the right hand side of the aircraft behind row 10 died, then how come we have that aircraft interior video showing the right hand side of the aircraft? That video was shoot overwing

I'm going to guess that some people in the back didn't wait for the plane to stop before they got up and moved to the front. I can only imagine how horrific it would have been seeing flames, hearing screams, feeling the intense heat, and having to make a survival choice.

God bless them.

32andBelow wrote:

khobar95 wrote:

People seem to think pax just jump up and run for the exits, but they have to wait until instructed to evacuate. In AA383 it was 31 seconds between the aircraft stop and the first pax on the slide. BA2276 took about the same.

From the videos posted of this SSJ, by 41 seconds it appears the entire rear fuselage is burned through. Food for thought.

They don’t have to be instructed. What if all the FAs die? The exits are briefed and very self explanatory. Move the big lever and GTFO

Exits may be briefed, etc. but the last thing you want is for pax to open doors and jumping into fire and/or path of running engines. So, yes, pax are instructed to remain seated until ordered to move and to where. See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQDF_pesqAo

In this Aeroflot case, one of the crew first tried to open one of the rear doors. When that failed, he directed people toward the front. Sadly, he died along with so many others.

No matter what we say on here the crash investigation should show the full picture. Just have to give it time.

This is a classic example of snippets of news to feed the feeding frenzy,

As a reminder to users: forum rules require that any link that is posted come with some form of description explaining what the link contains. Links may never be posted without context, and are subject to removal. It is recommended that users advise caution if the link contains material that may be disturbing.

✈️ atcsundevil

Interesting spin German tabloid BILD is giving the inferno - its headline is "Did Business Class Passengers Hamper Evacuation?", insinuating that because of the business class section in the front of the cabin the collection of carry-on luggage by passengers there delayed the escape of economy passengers from the back of the cabin:

https://www.bild.de/news/2019/news/mosk ... .bild.html

vfw614 wrote:

Interesting spin German tabloid BILD is giving the inferno - its headline is "Did Business Class Passengers Hamper Evacuation?", insinuating that because of the business class section in the front of the cabin the collection of carry-on luggage by passengers there delayed the escape of economy passengers from the back of the cabin:

https://www.bild.de/news/2019/news/mosk ... .bild.html

Seems like rank speculation with a class-warfare perspective. Should be easy enough to check -- just ask the survivors. If true, the problem is hand luggage, rather than class.

vfw614 wrote:

Interesting spin German tabloid BILD is giving the inferno - its headline is "Did Business Class Passengers Hamper Evacuation?", insinuating that because of the business class section in the front of the cabin the collection of carry-on luggage by passengers there delayed the escape of economy passengers from the back of the cabin:

https://www.bild.de/news/2019/news/mosk ... .bild.html

This is a typical Titanic 1st v 3rd class story sadly.

Pentaprism wrote:

Do the Crew normally carry a Satellite phone? I assumed they would in case of Radio Issues but several things I have read suggest that after radio connection was lost no communication with the Tower was possible. Response from ES may have been better if communication was maintained. Some comments have suggested the loss of radio contact stopped them from dumping fuel.

I love the SSJ and have always wanted to fly one but it does concern me the MLG (apparently) penetrated the Fuel Tank. According to one comment I read this also happened in the Yakutsk incident but luckily there was no ignition on that occasion. How much force is a MLG designed to withstand? How common are MLG collapses?

Parts are designed to collapses at certain force to (at lease intention to) avoid further harm to passengers onboard, such as landing gears; engines etc.
In addition, MLG collapses is not that rare during a crash, even happened during 777 crash landings.

sadly the rear part of the plane was almost completely full while there were seats available in the front.

PW100 wrote:

speedbird52 wrote:

VeeCee wrote:

Do you also support prosecuting pilots when people are injured or killed due to pilot error?

In cases of gross negligence, yes.

There is big difference between highly trained professionals, and your average passenger.

There is also a big difference in what they have to do. The passengers only have to follow instructions and ignore materialism for the sake of the life of others, while the trained professionals have a much harder task. One of the passengers getting out with his luggage, Dmitry Khlebushkin, left the airport mad because he didn't get a refund within 40 minutes. Situations like this reveal peoples personalities, of both the heroes and the sociopaths.

hongkongflyer wrote:

sadly the rear part of the plane was almost completely full while there were seats available in the front.

Nope, many of those are nonexistent seats/rows. It was 3 rows of 4-abreast seats in the front. https://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Aerof ... 00-95B.php

And per the report apparently a FA died when trying to open the door at the back. Could that action actually accelerated the spread of the fire and smoke into the cabin?

c933103 wrote:

And per the report apparently a FA died when trying to open the door at the back. Could that action actually accelerated the spread of the fire and smoke into the cabin?

Good question. From purely a physics perspective, any action that breached the barrier between the flames and cabin interior would likely have introduced flames and smoke into the cabin quicker than otherwise and provided an oxygen source for any fire already burning in the cabin. As we've seen in the American at ORD and BA at LAS, the fuselage can provide protection from fire longer than at least I would have expected. That said, the fuselage was likely already damaged from the impact(s) and raging fuel-fed fire, allowing paths for flames, smoke, gasses, and oxygen regardless of rear door position. *Unless* a rear door was left open (not visible in any videos I've seen), I doubt it would have mattered much in this particular case given all of the other accident events and hazards.

A question for others, CAN a door be *immediately* re-closed if the slide has deployed - or would it be unable to close completely without physically detaching the slide? Thanks.

By the looks of the video of the landing, it seems they had some sort of control problem. It's all up to what can be taken from the FDR, if it is still usable.

FlyKBHM wrote:

c933103 wrote:

And per the report apparently a FA died when trying to open the door at the back. Could that action actually accelerated the spread of the fire and smoke into the cabin?

Good question. From purely a physics perspective, any action that breached the barrier between the flames and cabin interior would likely have introduced flames and smoke into the cabin quicker than otherwise and provided an oxygen source for any fire already burning in the cabin. As we've seen in the American at ORD and BA at LAS, the fuselage can provide protection from fire longer than at least I would have expected. That said, the fuselage was likely already damaged from the impact(s) and raging fuel-fed fire, allowing paths for flames, smoke, gasses, and oxygen regardless of rear door position. *Unless* a rear door was left open (not visible in any videos I've seen), I doubt it would have mattered much in this particular case given all of the other accident events and hazards.

A question for others, CAN a door be *immediately* re-closed if the slide has deployed - or would it be unable to close completely without physically detaching the slide? Thanks.

I don't have the answer to your question, but in the video taken inside the cabin on the right side, there is clearly some smoke visible inside as the plane comes to a halt and the chimes are heard.

Appie88 wrote:

xmp125a wrote:

seahawk wrote:

The rear fuselage was burned through around the 0:40 mark, the last 3 persons to evacuate all wear dark clothing, that look like crew uniforms, probably the FA and the pilots after checking for any remaining passengers in the accessible area. Imho anybody sitting behind the engines had no chance at all.

Pilots left the cockpit via windows+evacuation ropes. At least, initial reports stated so (of course they also stated everyone evacuated safely, so a grain of salt here is needed).

Yes, at least 1 pilot is left cockpit via rope. Seen in this video at 02:45
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5OnYm5 ... e=youtu.be

At around the 2:25 mark, the man in the pinkish looking shirt makes a heroic attempt to climb back up the slide to go back and save lives. I also noted how survivors worked together to help eachother when they were coming down the slide. Make no mistake about it, there were some heroes on that flight. I bet the heat next to those slides was pretty bad too! I would like to think I would have been the type of person to try and climb back up the slide, but I would think those flames would have me running like I was in a marathon. My heart hurts for Russia today. These videos are agonizing to watch!

Anyone know if the plane is still there off the runway? Any word on the survivors and if anyone is still in the hospital?

SuseJ772 wrote:

N766UA wrote:

c933103 wrote:

The Daily Mail report quoted words from the pilot:

He said: 'We lost radio communication because of a lightning strike. We did not have radio communications during landing.

'We managed to resume it via an emergency frequency but it was abrupt and short. We managed to say a few words and lost it. And we had to connect it again.

'Air traffic control did help us, they guided us to the runway. The speed was not high, but normal for landing.

'Everything was according to the book. We gently approached the ground, slowing down. After a complete stop we ordered emergency evacuation.

'The second pilot was the first to leave the cockpit, then I did. At first I did not glance outside. When I did, I saw a fire engine. The fire began after landing. We were not on fire when in the air.'

Much of that appears to be complete BS. It wasn’t a normal landing, nor was it smooth, nor gentle. If they were not on fire in the air and there were no control issues, then there is absolutely zero excuse for a landing so violent is causes the aircraft to essentially explode in flames. If he said anything about weather, mechanical issues, control malfunctions... ANYTHING... I’d give him the benefit of the doubt. But this “we had a textbook landing, I dunno what happened!” schtick is just absolutely unacceptable.

I am really hoping this is a translation issue. If it isn’t, and with the video, this is really bad.

I listened to that Basa video last night, and honestly don't remember hearing anything about 2nd pilot leaving first, pilot climbed out of the window as they knew plane was on fire, and captain did say that there were landing because of lack of radio and some other problems, but during descent they didn't experience any problems, everything was according to plan

1: I hope that pilot report is a hoax.

2: Why did the media jump the gun this badly for first reporting 0 deaths, later 13 and now 41? Just to be the first? I find this very discusting. Can you inmagine having a relative on board, seeing the news and beeing glad everyone survived to later discover 41 actually died...

Question. How many flight attendants work on the Aeroflot SSJ? Is it safe to guess there is only one Flight Attendant seated in the very front of the plane? If so, I think that flight attendant deserves some kudos! He or she had those doors open quick, and really did an amazing job as far as I am concerned. Had the flight attendant hesitated even 30 seconds more, I firmly believe the death toll would have been much higher.

And the pilot said they lost all electrical? The inside cabin video, you can hear the intercom chime shortly after the plane stops. Could the electrical problem have lead to the botched landing perhaps? What a tragedy.

F9Animal wrote:

Question. How many flight attendants work on the Aeroflot SSJ?

Yesterday I saw a post on a twitter account with the picture of three, 2 women and a man, all young, that were said to have saved lives in this tragedy. Since the SSJ100 is not a large aircraft, I guess the man is the FA that died in the inferno.

Gods grace be with the families and loved ones of those who sadly lost their lives.

Based on some comments that the aircraft was at excessive speed during landing, not seeing that. From both FlightRadar24 and Flightaware data (assuming accurate) at around 1,000’ (press. alt.) on landing the GS was in the range of 143-148 kn. At the landing METAR there would be a 2 kn HW. This would be around 139-144 kn. IAS. From online data for this aircraft at MLW the Vref is noted as around 142 kn. With the normal 5 kn adder the Vappr speed (@ MLW) would be around 147 kn. That’s close enough to the IAS range of 139-144 kn given the rough data, if the online aircraft data is accurate.

c933103 wrote:

And per the report apparently a FA died when trying to open the door at the back. Could that action actually accelerated the spread of the fire and smoke into the cabin?

Very very doubtful in my opinion. I doubt the flight attendant in the back even attempted to open a door with that massive fire. Let's say the FA did, I doubt it would have quickened the fire in any way. It also appears the engines were still running shortly after coming to a complete stop. It's hard to tell, but I could swear the flames were shooting stronger behind the engines in some of the videos.

But the answer to your question is just a guess.

I cant figure out how to add more than one quote to a post! Might be because I am using mobile version? Anyways, the pilots interview has me wondering if smoke inhalation might have hit the pilots a little? Perhaps messing up their memory of the landing? I have spoken to someone that had smoke inhalation, and their memories of their situation were a bit flawed because of it. Just a thought?

Here’s a great article which shows a photo of the male flight attendant died as well as one of the other crew members, both of whom are hero’s in my opinion. RIP.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.telegr ... liner/amp/

F9Animal wrote:

c933103 wrote:

And per the report apparently a FA died when trying to open the door at the back. Could that action actually accelerated the spread of the fire and smoke into the cabin?

Very very doubtful in my opinion. I doubt the flight attendant in the back even attempted to open a door with that massive fire. Let's say the FA did, I doubt it would have quickened the fire in any way. It also appears the engines were still running shortly after coming to a complete stop. It's hard to tell, but I could swear the flames were shooting stronger behind the engines in some of the videos.

But the answer to your question is just a guess.

I cant figure out how to add more than one quote to a post! Might be because I am using mobile version? Anyways, the pilots interview has me wondering if smoke inhalation might have hit the pilots a little? Perhaps messing up their memory of the landing? I have spoken to someone that had smoke inhalation, and their memories of their situation were a bit flawed because of it. Just a thought?

Anything traumatic is going to cause you to have distorted memories in terms of over or under focus on steps in the event, but it's also likely that you would remember every moment much more clearly than you would normally would. I would be suspicious of any inconsistencies in the story, however.

fpetrutiu wrote:

This looks very much like an uncontained engine failure that ruptured the wing tank. RIP to those that perished. Now at 41.

A voice of reason in a sea of lightning-fast credulity.

c933103 wrote:

If everyone sitting on the windows side of the right hand side of the aircraft behind row 10 died, then how come we have that aircraft interior video showing the right hand side of the aircraft? That video was shoot overwing

I really hope this passenger survived, but he also could have live streamed the video, no?

sergegva wrote:

c933103 wrote:

If everyone sitting on the windows side of the right hand side of the aircraft behind row 10 died, then how come we have that aircraft interior video showing the right hand side of the aircraft? That video was shoot overwing

I really hope this passenger survived, but he also could have live streamed the video, no?

He survived and gave interview, its on Russian, but google translate usually works well

Here is his interview

https://v1.ru/text/gorod/66079222/

N212R wrote:

fpetrutiu wrote:

This looks very much like an uncontained engine failure that ruptured the wing tank. RIP to those that perished. Now at 41.

A voice of reason in a sea of lightning-fast credulity.

Obviously you haven't seen the landing CCTV footage.

F9Animal wrote:

c933103 wrote:

And per the report apparently a FA died when trying to open the door at the back. Could that action actually accelerated the spread of the fire and smoke into the cabin?

Very very doubtful in my opinion. I doubt the flight attendant in the back even attempted to open a door with that massive fire. Let's say the FA did, I doubt it would have quickened the fire in any way. It also appears the engines were still running shortly after coming to a complete stop. It's hard to tell, but I could swear the flames were shooting stronger behind the engines in some of the videos.

But the answer to your question is just a guess.

I cant figure out how to add more than one quote to a post! Might be because I am using mobile version? Anyways, the pilots interview has me wondering if smoke inhalation might have hit the pilots a little? Perhaps messing up their memory of the landing? I have spoken to someone that had smoke inhalation, and their memories of their situation were a bit flawed because of it. Just a thought?

Opening the door, even part way, would have killed many. Heat, smoke, panic, flames. These cause deaths.

The fuselage should withstand more than 1 minute of fire from the outside. Without a rear breech, the aircraft being consumed by fire that quickly would be a major design flaw. The investigation will be enlightening.

ikarlson wrote:

sergegva wrote:

c933103 wrote:

If everyone sitting on the windows side of the right hand side of the aircraft behind row 10 died, then how come we have that aircraft interior video showing the right hand side of the aircraft? That video was shoot overwing

I really hope this passenger survived, but he also could have live streamed the video, no?

He survived and gave interview, its on Russian, but google translate usually works well

Here is his interview

https://v1.ru/text/gorod/66079222/

Thanks!

Dreamflight767 wrote:

If it's true that all electronics failed, how did the transponder keep transmitting data and the 76/7700 squawk. FR24 clearly has the aircraft's flight path and ALT/speed read-out.

Sorry but the "lightning" story is pure Soviet face-saving.

N212R wrote:

Sorry but the "lightning" story is pure Soviet face-saving.

I didn’t notice any convective clouds in the videos

zeke wrote:

N212R wrote:

Sorry but the "lightning" story is pure Soviet face-saving.

I didn’t notice any convective clouds in the videos

lol. Because weather is static.

SpaceshipDC10 wrote:

F9Animal wrote:

Since the SSJ100 is not a large aircraft, I guess the man is the FA that died in the inferno.

Indeed so, brave young man. Hope he's in a much better place, can't imagine what was going through his mind as he sat in that back galley at his jumpseat before jumping to save people. Only 22 years old.

khobar95 wrote:

32andBelow wrote:

khobar95 wrote:

People seem to think pax just jump up and run for the exits, but they have to wait until instructed to evacuate. In AA383 it was 31 seconds between the aircraft stop and the first pax on the slide. BA2276 took about the same.

From the videos posted of this SSJ, by 41 seconds it appears the entire rear fuselage is burned through. Food for thought.

They don’t have to be instructed. What if all the FAs die? The exits are briefed and very self explanatory. Move the big lever and GTFO

Exits may be briefed, etc. but the last thing you want is for pax to open doors and jumping into fire and/or path of running engines. So, yes, pax are instructed to remain seated until ordered to move and to where. See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQDF_pesqAo

In this Aeroflot case, one of the crew first tried to open one of the rear doors. When that failed, he directed people toward the front. Sadly, he died along with so many others.

Part of the briefing is to check if it’s clear through the window. Again what happens if the crew dies? You just sit and wait?

vfw614 wrote:

Interesting spin German tabloid BILD is giving the inferno - its headline is "Did Business Class Passengers Hamper Evacuation?", insinuating that because of the business class section in the front of the cabin the collection of carry-on luggage by passengers there delayed the escape of economy passengers from the back of the cabin:

https://www.bild.de/news/2019/news/mosk ... .bild.html

The luggage problem is sad and true. But I also wonder if passengers would willingly run to the blocked exit in the rear. Maybe because they are injured from the landing, or because of confusion and blocked view from the smoke, or because people trying to open it could look like you can use the exit.

Either the pilot's quote we got is fake, or he's in shock and saying nonsense, or he's in denial and saying nonsense.

There is no way they could not know up front that the landing was not normal at all !

At some point its probably a good Idea to have locking mechanisms for over head bins from out of blocks to 10,000 ft and vise-versa. Nobody should be up out of their seat at that point anyway, and in case of an emergency like this they remain locked for the evacuation. Include a crew only manual over ride (key of some sort) should one fail during normal operations.

I feel that would prevent people from opening the bins and grabbing their suitcases.

RIP to all who perished.

Aesma wrote:

Either the pilot's quote we got is fake, or he's in shock and saying nonsense, or he's in denial and saying nonsense.

There is no way they could not know up front that the landing was not normal at all !

Or they are aware of Russia's very strict liability laws. I wouldn’t take the pilots interview as gospel at this point.

vfw614 wrote:

Interesting spin German tabloid BILD is giving the inferno - its headline is "Did Business Class Passengers Hamper Evacuation?", insinuating that because of the business class section in the front of the cabin the collection of carry-on luggage by passengers there delayed the escape of economy passengers from the back of the cabin:

https://www.bild.de/news/2019/news/mosk ... .bild.html

If I saw a pax getting his/her luggage during an evac, I would push them down to the ground and step right on top of them on my way out for putting my life at risk for a replaceable belonging. That pax is basically picking their luggage over my life so they shouldnt be upset when I push them out of the way.

Listen guys, if you're ever in an evac situation, GET OUT. Don't reach for your bags. If you're an able bodied crewmember, request to sit in the emergency row to assist with expedited evac. Lives depend on it as you can see in this case. Every second counted.

I personally don't like sitting in the emergency row because the seats don't recline, but I do it because I'm best trained on that aircraft to assist in a evac after the crew working the flight. Once I open that door, I'm assisting people to exit the aircraft. Depending on the type of door, some are removable, some are swing open type, some pax will not be able to lift that door out of the way yet they still accept that seat.

Fire or Smoke evac is not the time to be fumbling around with that door, or realizing your're in no physical shape to be removing the door.

Replace free carry-on by free hold luggage and expensive carry-on (except small bag that can fit under the seat) then you solve part of the problem. Of course you're left with the passengers up front paying for that or getting it in their expensive ticket anyway.

OneSexyL1011 wrote:

At some point its probably a good Idea to have locking mechanisms for over head bins from out of blocks to 10,000 ft and vise-versa. Nobody should be up out of their seat at that point anyway, and in case of an emergency like this they remain locked for the evacuation. Include a crew only manual over ride (key of some sort) should one fail during normal operations.

I feel that would prevent people from opening the bins and grabbing their suitcases.

RIP to all who perished.

Great idea but one has to wonder if a pax would then bang on it wondering why its locked. I once had a female pax demand the first three over head bins be used to safely transport her wedding dress and ALL other bags be removed. Lucky for her it was an empty flight.

Also as has already been mentioned luggage was probably thrown around, maybe even luggage racks separated from the ceiling, when that plane crash landed. So less luggage could have been helpful.

I was in turbulences once, nothing major, nothing that would make it to avherald, on take-off from NCE, I just experienced a bit of negative Gs and made good use of the seat belt, yet that was enough for many luggage racks to open, stuff to fly around including a big camera not far from my head. And that was more than 20 years ago, when carry-ons were much less a thing than now !

ikarlson wrote:

sergegva wrote:

c933103 wrote:

If everyone sitting on the windows side of the right hand side of the aircraft behind row 10 died, then how come we have that aircraft interior video showing the right hand side of the aircraft? That video was shoot overwing

I really hope this passenger survived, but he also could have live streamed the video, no?

He survived and gave interview, its on Russian, but google translate usually works well

Here is his interview

https://v1.ru/text/gorod/66079222/

The short video included in the article of the two flight attendants looking at their ship in flames is haunting. They're thinking of the passengers but almost certainly their colleague in the back. I pray I never have to experience something like this.

32andBelow wrote:

simonriat wrote:

HI all

Just woke to this terrible news, condolences to the families.

Quick question on the SSJ. Does it not have fuel dump capabilities?

Slightly digressing, but the lightening strike has got me be a slightly worried. If it managed to fry the electronics, and disable systems, who is to say that even if it did have a fuel dump system, it would have become inoperable?

Once again terrible news and I hope the investigators find the answers.

Thanks in advance
Simon

No way can it dump. And it doesn’t need to. Any airplane can land overweight in an emergency. It just needs an inspection if it does.

Really?? It was both posted up-thread on here and being reported by RT and CNN that review of the ATC recordings when asked about dumping fuel, the crew responded they did not feel comfortable at low altitude dumping fuel over the city.