Jetty
Posts: 929
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2015 12:27 pm

Re: Updated: Aeroflot 1492 SSJ100 fire at Moscow (SVO) - 40+ confirmed dead

Sat May 11, 2019 5:07 am

Venatt wrote:
According to this article a Fat Man cause many passenger do die in crash, only three people behind him managed to get out, and he still got his carry on luggage and still demanded a refund after that and was very upset.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... crash.html

What an awful man. And with how big he is no one could pass him while he was retrieving his luggage. :yuck: :yuck: I hope he gets locked up, the prison canteen might have some things he can buy with his refund.
 
User avatar
SomebodyInTLS
Posts: 1681
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 12:31 pm

Re: Updated: Aeroflot 1492 SSJ100 fire at Moscow (SVO) - 40+ confirmed dead

Sat May 11, 2019 5:44 am

MD80Ttail wrote:
Many years ago I clearly remember aircraft engine manufactures working with fuel suppliers to create a fuel that wouldn’t burn during a crash if tanks were torn open. I honestly can’t remember if this was 80s-90s-2000s.

Jet fuel is basically kerosene. It’s really not that flammable in a liquid state. It needs to be vaporized to ignite and the vapors themselves are highly flammable. If you have a 55 Gallon drum of it and somehow there were no vapors and you drop a match into the drum of fuel it would put the match out. The theory was to develop an agent added to the fuel that would cause it to clump or gel and substantially reduce if not eliminate a fire during a crash.

I may not have all of the details correct. Can anyone remember this?? Obviously there were technical and or financial problems because it’s never been released.


That would be this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMO5gLNBKKU

Famously didn't go according to plan (PIO, ironically, due to the remote control) - but no-one was going to whip out another plane and do it again next day...
"As with most things related to aircraft design, it's all about the trade-offs and much more nuanced than A.net likes to make out."
 
eielef
Posts: 700
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 4:07 am

Re: Updated: Aeroflot 1492 SSJ100 fire at Moscow (SVO) - 40+ confirmed dead

Sat May 11, 2019 6:22 am

Similar happens with the on-board safety cards. Try to wear a life vest using those instructions. Is completely impossible.
Also, in some countries where English is not the official language, most crew members have a very bad accent, even an irritating one.
I think they could use a voice recording, while crew members acting.

I read somewhere than making funny videos actually helps the people to focus, but I'm not very sure.
Maybe for crew is exhausting repeating the same demonstration many times each day. That's why they chose videos, in airlines with that technology...
 
User avatar
Jouhou
Posts: 1964
Joined: Tue May 24, 2016 4:16 am

Re: Updated: Aeroflot 1492 SSJ100 fire at Moscow (SVO) - 40+ confirmed dead

Sat May 11, 2019 7:55 am

remcor wrote:
Bjorn of Leeham has an analysis which he guesses that the bad landing was caused by a pilot induced oscillation partly because the crew were inexperienced with flying the plane when in Direct Law.
https://leehamnews.com/2019/05/10/bjorn ... o-airport/


The landing reminded me of how I landed planes in GTA... but the real world isn't a video game and outcomes aren't reversible and aircraft aren't quite so durable.
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 19314
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

Re: Updated: Aeroflot 1492 SSJ100 fire at Moscow (SVO) - 40+ confirmed dead

Sat May 11, 2019 8:06 am

THS214 wrote:
Starlionblue wrote:
THS214 wrote:
A lot of people here are complaining about passengers not following safety instructions yet cheer when safety instructions are based on Hobbities, Legos or Southwest funny as h..l safety demonstrations. Safety wise it doesn't work. Passengers concentrate on wrong things. Southwest passenger knows it was funny but if you ask them what safety related they remember of that "my ex husband" tirade the answer is none.

The old fashion safety demonstration is clearly the best. Instead of watching boring demonstration from a small screen people see real human and that get their attention.


I agree. However most people don't pay attention to that either. I'm the guy who always checks where the exits, how the doors work, and if my life vest is in place. Same as when I get to a hotel I check where the fire exits are. But I'm not a "normal" flyer.

When I get asked about that safety demo stuff, I always tell people to check where the nearest four exits are, including the two behind them. No other thing else even comes close when it comes to increasing your chances of survival in an emergency. Knowing how to put the life vest is reasonably intuitive and most likely you'll have time to figure it out. The oxygen masks are not that hard to at least get oxygen out of, though the "over the NOSE and mouth" bit seems lost on many. And even if you lose consciousness you'll either get help or be at a safe altitude within minutes. Getting to your exit with fire and smoke? No time to look it up if something happens.

All that being said, the likelihood of even a very frequent flyer, or a pilot, ever being in any sort of emergency situation is exceedingly slim. The chance of being in a car accident is an order of magnitude bigger.


I do pretty much the same.

One more thing, always count seats to forward and aft to the door. When you can't see and breath just touch every seat row, count and you are at the exit.


Same in hotels. Count the doors to the emergency exits.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
Armadillo1
Posts: 405
Joined: Thu Apr 20, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: Updated: Aeroflot 1492 SSJ100 fire at Moscow (SVO) - 40+ confirmed dead

Sat May 11, 2019 8:13 am

https://www.yapfiles.ru/show/2181516/1a ... 8.mp4.html
man from row 18 sayd he delay breath and move over seats because people staying in aisle.

lets start discuss about folding seats)
 
by738
Posts: 2951
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2000 7:59 am

Re: Updated: Aeroflot 1492 SSJ100 fire at Moscow (SVO) - 40+ confirmed dead

Sat May 11, 2019 8:22 am

Maybe like in buildings (although this might be costly and have some injury risk) they should have more false alarm full evacuation tests so that people get to experience the scenario. I suppose like building fire alarms people might just always think its a test.
 
User avatar
DeltaMD90
Posts: 8497
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 11:25 pm

Re: Updated: Aeroflot 1492 SSJ100 fire at Moscow (SVO) - 40+ confirmed dead

Sat May 11, 2019 4:19 pm

It sucks people, but aviation has certain risks and people will die once in a while. I'm not trying to thwart safety progress or stop us from being proactive, but it's seems like we're trying to regulate any possibility of deaths with no regard to how it'll affect everyday lives or how much it'll cost.

Locking overhead bins sounds great in theory, but how about all the times people are gonna be stuck on planes and missing connections because they malfunction and are stuck closed? I'm sure it won't happen to most people or maybe once in their lives, but it's probably 100 times more likely to happen than a crash (where they may or may not be effective.)

And I guarantee you every single person in that plane is gonna think "ugh I wish these stupid locks didn't exist, I'd rather have them gone and risk the 0.00001% chance of me burning to death next flight!"

That's what we do every day with just about anything. We drive in cars even though it's safer to walk (but way more convenient!) We go out in public even though a mass shooter or terrorist may kill us. Tragic, but I am not sure there is much we can do to prevent this from happening again that won't piss us off by a factor of thousand in the meantime.

Human life has a monetary and convenience price. If you disagree, you probably don't realize how you do it every single day (or you live in a plastic bubble and never leave home)
 
User avatar
Finn350
Posts: 1553
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 4:57 am

Re: Updated: Aeroflot 1492 SSJ100 fire at Moscow (SVO) - 40+ confirmed dead

Sun May 12, 2019 8:00 am

According to a Russian new agency, the majority of passengers in the tail end of the aircraft had almost no chance of survival. The majority of passengers in the tail end of the aircraft, which was primarily hit by a fire, had practically no chance of rescue. "This is evidenced by the position of the bodies of many passengers who were found in the tail of the aircraft. They did not even have time to unbutton their seat belts, they died in their seats inhaling poisonous gases. Someone might have lost consciousness when the plane hit the runway. The causes of death of all the victims will now be established," said the source. He added that the passengers of the tail section of the aircraft who managed to escape moved to the front of the aircraft even before the aircraft had stopped.

Source: https://tass.ru/proisshestviya/6420256 (by Google translation)
 
User avatar
AirlineCritic
Posts: 1629
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 1:07 pm

Re: Updated: Aeroflot 1492 SSJ100 fire at Moscow (SVO) - 40+ confirmed dead

Sun May 12, 2019 5:15 pm

Yeah. Not a big surprise. But very sad.

I'd focus this thread more on what happened to botch the landing, what was wrong before (if anything), and whether the structure of the aircraft was as strong and failure tolerant as it was supposed to be.

(And, trying as an industry cut down a bit the amount of luggage handing above people's heads.)
 
catchoursmile
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2019 9:14 pm

Re: Updated: Aeroflot 1492 SSJ100 fire at Moscow (SVO) - 40+ confirmed dead

Sun May 12, 2019 11:14 pm

Armadillo1 wrote:
https://www.yapfiles.ru/show/2181516/1a9430a51e0653a8730ccf654428d578.mp4.html
man from row 18 sayd he delay breath and move over seats because people staying in aisle.

lets start discuss about folding seats)


Can anyone translate the whole 30 seconds?

Seems to conflict with the TASS report that people in the back had zero chance, and this guy made his way to the front before the plane stopped.
 
Armadillo1
Posts: 405
Joined: Thu Apr 20, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: Updated: Aeroflot 1492 SSJ100 fire at Moscow (SVO) - 40+ confirmed dead

Mon May 13, 2019 8:18 am

nothing more useful.
he thought about wife and 3 kids, and this helps him survive
 
tu204
Posts: 1916
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 12:36 am

Re: Updated: Aeroflot 1492 SSJ100 fire at Moscow (SVO) - 40+ confirmed dead

Mon May 13, 2019 5:48 pm

Armadillo1 wrote:
https://www.yapfiles.ru/show/2181516/1a9430a51e0653a8730ccf654428d578.mp4.html
man from row 18 sayd he delay breath and move over seats because people staying in aisle.

lets start discuss about folding seats)


Thats actually a good question! Why don't we use folding seats anymore?

I remember on Tu-154's and Tu-134's the seat backs could fold forward. Pretty cool feature cause if you had nobody sitting in front of you you could fold the seatback down and then stretch your legs out onto the seatback. Plus for evacuation it would be simpler.
I do not dream about movie stars, they must dream about me for I am real and they are not. - Alexander Popov
 
MD80Ttail
Posts: 159
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2016 1:22 am

Re: Updated: Aeroflot 1492 SSJ100 fire at Moscow (SVO) - 40+ confirmed dead

Mon May 13, 2019 5:51 pm

DeltaMD90 wrote:
It sucks people, but aviation has certain risks and people will die once in a while. I'm not trying to thwart safety progress or stop us from being proactive, but it's seems like we're trying to regulate any possibility of deaths with no regard to how it'll affect everyday lives or how much it'll cost.

Locking overhead bins sounds great in theory, but how about all the times people are gonna be stuck on planes and missing connections because they malfunction and are stuck closed? I'm sure it won't happen to most people or maybe once in their lives, but it's probably 100 times more likely to happen than a crash (where they may or may not be effective.)

And I guarantee you every single person in that plane is gonna think "ugh I wish these stupid locks didn't exist, I'd rather have them gone and risk the 0.00001% chance of me burning to death next flight!"

That's what we do every day with just about anything. We drive in cars even though it's safer to walk (but way more convenient!) We go out in public even though a mass shooter or terrorist may kill us. Tragic, but I am not sure there is much we can do to prevent this from happening again that won't piss us off by a factor of thousand in the meantime.

Human life has a monetary and convenience price. If you disagree, you probably don't realize how you do it every single day (or you live in a plastic bubble and never leave home)


Well said. Cultural norms also come into play. Most of these pax were Russian. Anyone who has been to Russia understands my statement. Different areas have different cultures and it plays out in emergencies too.
 
Armadillo1
Posts: 405
Joined: Thu Apr 20, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: Updated: Aeroflot 1492 SSJ100 fire at Moscow (SVO) - 40+ confirmed dead

Mon May 13, 2019 7:04 pm

tu204 wrote:
Armadillo1 wrote:
https://www.yapfiles.ru/show/2181516/1a9430a51e0653a8730ccf654428d578.mp4.html
man from row 18 sayd he delay breath and move over seats because people staying in aisle.

lets start discuss about folding seats)


Thats actually a good question! Why don't we use folding seats anymore?

I remember on Tu-154's and Tu-134's the seat backs could fold forward. Pretty cool feature cause if you had nobody sitting in front of you you could fold the seatback down and then stretch your legs out onto the seatback. Plus for evacuation it would be simpler.

it is sertified for 18g frontal?
 
Armadillo1
Posts: 405
Joined: Thu Apr 20, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: Updated: Aeroflot 1492 SSJ100 fire at Moscow (SVO) - 40+ confirmed dead

Mon May 13, 2019 7:09 pm

https://youtu.be/fwQIZWs1ZWA
one more landing video. informative
 
AirwayBill
Posts: 135
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2019 8:37 am

Re: Updated: Aeroflot 1492 SSJ100 fire at Moscow (SVO) - 40+ confirmed dead

Mon May 13, 2019 8:22 pm

Equipment back to SSJ since the 11th of May, and no change of flight number. Very curious as to why they are keeping so many “disaster reminders” on this flight.
 
eielef
Posts: 700
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 4:07 am

Re: Updated: Aeroflot 1492 SSJ100 fire at Moscow (SVO) - 40+ confirmed dead

Mon May 13, 2019 8:29 pm

Interesting opinion article about how fast we run to find who is to blame, and we want sometimes to be bigger than what it is.
https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2019/05/ ... ies-a65549
 
D L X
Posts: 12465
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

Re: Updated: Aeroflot 1492 SSJ100 fire at Moscow (SVO) - 40+ confirmed dead

Tue May 14, 2019 1:20 am

Armadillo1 wrote:
https://youtu.be/fwQIZWs1ZWA
one more landing video. informative

That’s a lot of bouncing. Each bounce worse than the previous.
 
tu204
Posts: 1916
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 12:36 am

Re: Updated: Aeroflot 1492 SSJ100 fire at Moscow (SVO) - 40+ confirmed dead

Tue May 14, 2019 5:28 am

Armadillo1 wrote:
tu204 wrote:
Armadillo1 wrote:
https://www.yapfiles.ru/show/2181516/1a9430a51e0653a8730ccf654428d578.mp4.html
man from row 18 sayd he delay breath and move over seats because people staying in aisle.

lets start discuss about folding seats)


Thats actually a good question! Why don't we use folding seats anymore?

I remember on Tu-154's and Tu-134's the seat backs could fold forward. Pretty cool feature cause if you had nobody sitting in front of you you could fold the seatback down and then stretch your legs out onto the seatback. Plus for evacuation it would be simpler.

it is sertified for 18g frontal?


That's my gues as to why.

In an impact I bet that the passenger behind you will fold your seat forward and do.some damage to you.
I do not dream about movie stars, they must dream about me for I am real and they are not. - Alexander Popov
 
tu204
Posts: 1916
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 12:36 am

Re: Updated: Aeroflot 1492 SSJ100 fire at Moscow (SVO) - 40+ confirmed dead

Tue May 14, 2019 6:48 am

https://m.lenta.ru/news/2019/05/14/emercom/

The investigation into the crash is looking into violations by the ARFF.

Main points:

1) The "Emergency" signal to rescuers was sent 80 seconds after landing rather than immediately after the aircraft declared emergency (as per regulations).

2) The first truck departed from the depot rather than waiting at the side of the runway.

3) The first two trucks to arrive were loaded with water rather than foam for fighting a fuel-fire.

4) Although the crew of the SSJ stated that they were expecting a normal landing, they did declare an emergency and per protocol all Emergency vehicles were to be put on standy.
I do not dream about movie stars, they must dream about me for I am real and they are not. - Alexander Popov
 
mxaxai
Posts: 1068
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:29 am

Re: Updated: Aeroflot 1492 SSJ100 fire at Moscow (SVO) - 40+ confirmed dead

Tue May 14, 2019 7:32 am

Armadillo1 wrote:
https://youtu.be/fwQIZWs1ZWA
one more landing video. informative

Wow, hadn't seen this one before. Crazy that a "normal" landing would be filmed in such high quality from so many angles.

The first touchdown looks very normal. Even the second bounce is just a minor bounce that should've been recoverable. Does someone know if autospoilers are inhibited, on the SSJ, by direct law? I could imagine a slight overrotation on the first touchdown, coupled with a lack of spoilers, to cause the aircraft to lift off again. If the pilot was used to automatic spoiler deployment, he might have expected the aircraft to remain firmly on the ground even if the aircraft attitude increases after touchdown.
 
KliptWings
Posts: 3
Joined: Sun May 12, 2019 8:00 pm

Re: Updated: Aeroflot 1492 SSJ100 fire at Moscow (SVO) - 40+ confirmed dead

Tue May 14, 2019 9:57 am

The landing reminded me of a couple of MD11 accidents, notably the one in NRT
 
MalevTU134
Posts: 2091
Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2016 8:04 pm

Re: Updated: Aeroflot 1492 SSJ100 fire at Moscow (SVO) - 40+ confirmed dead

Tue May 14, 2019 2:32 pm

Armadillo1 wrote:
https://youtu.be/fwQIZWs1ZWA
one more landing video. informative

On the third bounce, the fatal one, why on earth did neither of the pilots hit the TOGA button (or whatever it's called in Russian - the Da Svedanya button?)? Direct law or not, there is no good outcome to be expected from such a bounce.
 
F9Animal
Posts: 4219
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2004 7:13 am

Re: Updated: Aeroflot 1492 SSJ100 fire at Moscow (SVO) - 40+ confirmed dead

Tue May 14, 2019 2:54 pm

Armadillo1 wrote:
https://youtu.be/fwQIZWs1ZWA
one more landing video. informative


Holy smokes!!! I cant tell, but did the spoilers deploy when the mains were firmly on the ground? Perhaps they did attempt a TOGA, and it all went to poo. Alot of blame being put on the pilots here, but really, we have really little info on what could have caused these bounces.
I Am A Different Animal!!
 
mxaxai
Posts: 1068
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:29 am

Re: Updated: Aeroflot 1492 SSJ100 fire at Moscow (SVO) - 40+ confirmed dead

Tue May 14, 2019 3:16 pm

MalevTU134 wrote:
Armadillo1 wrote:
https://youtu.be/fwQIZWs1ZWA
one more landing video. informative

On the third bounce, the fatal one, why on earth did neither of the pilots hit the TOGA button (or whatever it's called in Russian - the Da Svedanya button?)? Direct law or not, there is no good outcome to be expected from such a bounce.

Jet engines take a few seconds to spool up. They were probably doomed already when the third bounce happened. The first bounce should trigger a go around.
 
MalevTU134
Posts: 2091
Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2016 8:04 pm

Re: Updated: Aeroflot 1492 SSJ100 fire at Moscow (SVO) - 40+ confirmed dead

Tue May 14, 2019 3:48 pm

mxaxai wrote:
MalevTU134 wrote:
Armadillo1 wrote:
https://youtu.be/fwQIZWs1ZWA
one more landing video. informative

On the third bounce, the fatal one, why on earth did neither of the pilots hit the TOGA button (or whatever it's called in Russian - the Da Svedanya button?)? Direct law or not, there is no good outcome to be expected from such a bounce.

Jet engines take a few seconds to spool up. They were probably doomed already when the third bounce happened. The first bounce should trigger a go around.

I agree. Well, I rephrase: if not earlier, then at the third bounce, they should have gone around. And yes, if they are at idle, they take a few seconds to spool up...which is why they never should be at idle at landing, as far as I understand (any pilot here, please enlighten me/us).
 
N212R
Posts: 207
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 5:18 pm

Re: Updated: Aeroflot 1492 SSJ100 fire at Moscow (SVO) - 40+ confirmed dead

Tue May 14, 2019 6:59 pm

F9Animal wrote:
...we have really little info on what could have caused these bounces.


And even less info on what precipitated the return and anxious landing in the first place. But hundreds of posts about evacuation minutiae. :roll:
 
User avatar
mtzguerrero
Posts: 10
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2018 9:56 pm

Re: Updated: Aeroflot 1492 SSJ100 fire at Moscow (SVO) - 40+ confirmed dead

Tue May 14, 2019 11:17 pm

Armadillo1 wrote:
https://youtu.be/fwQIZWs1ZWA
one more landing video. informative


It's difficult to judge the pilots because we still don't know what was really rushing them to get on the ground, but really looks like that rush could be key in this messed up landing along with a possible lack of practice on direct law.
 
rilex037
Posts: 6
Joined: Mon May 06, 2019 7:23 pm

Re: Updated: Aeroflot 1492 SSJ100 fire at Moscow (SVO) - 40+ confirmed dead

Wed May 15, 2019 8:04 am

he came in too high, and was overshooting the runway, while TAS was below the red, he lost the lift and came in with this weird angle;
he never had chance for a go around, even before the first bounce; probably forced to fly without auto throttle; can be tricky if without practice;
 
WIederling
Posts: 8488
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Updated: Aeroflot 1492 SSJ100 fire at Moscow (SVO) - 40+ confirmed dead

Wed May 15, 2019 8:35 am

catchoursmile wrote:
Seems to conflict with the TASS report that people in the back had zero chance, and this guy made his way to the front before the plane stopped.


Maybe his behavior was instrumental to others not making it?
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
Finn350
Posts: 1553
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 4:57 am

Re: Updated: Aeroflot 1492 SSJ100 fire at Moscow (SVO) - 40+ confirmed dead

Thu May 16, 2019 5:17 am

Some new information: as a result of the lightning strike, the generators were automatically cut off and the plane entered Emergency Electrical Configuration (EEC). This resulted in the direct law being applied. The aircraft systems worked as designed, and the EEC should be considered as a designed function. Apparently the pilots panicked and made grave errors in landing, including touching down in the middle of the runway.
 
redcap1962
Posts: 195
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2010 9:26 am

Re: Updated: Aeroflot 1492 SSJ100 fire at Moscow (SVO) - 40+ confirmed dead

Sun May 19, 2019 4:29 pm

AV-Herald published an update per May 18 (highlighted in yellow) obviously based on data from the FDR:
http://avherald.com/h?article=4c78f3e6&opt=0

In the last third of the report it is mentioned that "... the captain began to apply oscillating pitch inputs with increasing amplitude which changed the pitch angle up to +6 and -2 degrees." There were three touch-downs, the last of which in "excess of +5G resulting in the destruction of the construction, a fuel spill and fire."
This is your pilot speaking. Welcome to flight one from here to there. We'll be flying at a height of ten feet, going up to twelve and a half feet if we see anything big. My copilot today is a flask of coffee.

Eddie Izzard
 
F9Animal
Posts: 4219
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2004 7:13 am

Re: Updated: Aeroflot 1492 SSJ100 fire at Moscow (SVO) - 40+ confirmed dead

Sun May 19, 2019 5:07 pm

redcap1962 wrote:
AV-Herald published an update per May 18 (highlighted in yellow) obviously based on data from the FDR:
http://avherald.com/h?article=4c78f3e6&opt=0

In the last third of the report it is mentioned that "... the captain began to apply oscillating pitch inputs with increasing amplitude which changed the pitch angle up to +6 and -2 degrees." There were three touch-downs, the last of which in "excess of +5G resulting in the destruction of the construction, a fuel spill and fire."


Could automation be too much these days? This would have required the old stick and rudder performance? My uncle in law who retired from NW as a 747-400 captain once told me that he was concerned about the newer pilots becoming to reliant on automation. He said the old stick and rudder days are becoming less and less, and he worried about that alot. Sadly, he passed away, but his reminder gives me chills.

What do you guys think will happen to these pilots? Are their careers over? Could they be facing charges for the loss of life? I actually feel kind of bad for them. I couldn't imagine making a botched landing and facing the wrath from it.
I Am A Different Animal!!
 
User avatar
SamYeager2016
Posts: 201
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 6:22 pm

Re: Updated: Aeroflot 1492 SSJ100 fire at Moscow (SVO) - 40+ confirmed dead

Sun May 19, 2019 7:32 pm

Just how much training did the pilots have in using direct law? I suspect the answer will be "not a lot" which is on Aeroflot however that will probably be swept under the carpet unless the pilots are lucky.
 
JBirdAV8r
Posts: 3460
Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2001 4:44 am

Re: Updated: Aeroflot 1492 SSJ100 fire at Moscow (SVO) - 40+ confirmed dead

Mon May 20, 2019 2:42 am

It’s tough, but not impossible, to bounce a transport-category jet. If the spoilers deploy, you’re coming down—and if they stay up, you’re staying down. They are very effective. I don’t fly the SSJ, but in the 737 and other jets I’ve flown, the first thing we do on touchdown is ensure the spoilers have deployed. I would imagine the SSJ has similar procedures.

The videos of the landing I’ve seen suggests to me that the spoilers never deployed, for whatever reason, and a porpoising/worsening bounce developed. It’s certainly possible and plausible that PIO caused or at least exacerbated the porpoise. You can cause PIO in just about anything but some jets are more susceptible to it in certain situations, including the Airbus. My question is simply why they didn’t go around. Was there some reason they actively choose not to execute one? Were they trying, but fell victim to PIO? Did they not think they needed one, or couldn’t for some reason?

So my thinking is that just blaming a “bad landing" on the accident isn't nearly detailed enough. Was the plane performing as advertised for its configuration (did the spoilers deploy and were they supposed to in this circumstance)? Were the pilots trained on this, and how did they execute? Etc...
I got my head checked--by a jumbo jet
 
User avatar
dennypayne
Posts: 239
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2012 3:38 am

Re: Updated: Aeroflot 1492 SSJ100 fire at Moscow (SVO) - 40+ confirmed dead

Mon May 20, 2019 3:41 am

JBirdAV8r wrote:
The videos of the landing I’ve seen suggests to me that the spoilers never deployed, for whatever reason, and a porpoising/worsening bounce developed.


From the Avherald article linked about 4 posts ago, the preliminary report states:

The spoilers did not deploy, in DIRECT MODE they are not permitted to operate automatically and need to be extended manually, however, the spoilers were not manually extended by the crew.
A300/310/319/320/321/332/333/343/380 AN24/28/38/148 AT72 B190
B717/722/732/3/4/5/7/8/9 742/744/752/753/762/763/764/772/773/788
CR2/7/9 D8S D9S D95 DHC2/3/7/8 D328 E110/120/135/140/145/170/175/190
F100 J31 L1011 L410 M11/80/90 RJ85 S340 SSJ100 T134/154 Y42
 
User avatar
Phosphorus
Posts: 553
Joined: Tue May 16, 2017 11:38 am

Re: Updated: Aeroflot 1492 SSJ100 fire at Moscow (SVO) - 40+ confirmed dead

Mon May 20, 2019 9:49 am

SamYeager2016 wrote:
Just how much training did the pilots have in using direct law? I suspect the answer will be "not a lot" which is on Aeroflot however that will probably be swept under the carpet unless the pilots are lucky.


Some pages before, I was quoting a rumor in Russian aviation circles -- that Aeroflot, relatively recently, restricted direct law experience to a sim training every six month for SSJ pilots. Actual flight training in direct law is apparently forbidden. Again, this is reported to be a recent phenomenon. Take it for what it's worth...
AN4 A40 L4T TU3 TU5 IL6 ILW I93 F50 F70 100 146 ARJ AT7 DH4 L10 CRJ ERJ E90 E95 DC-9 MD-8X YK4 YK2 SF3 S20 319 320 321 332 333 343 346 722 732 733 734 735 73G 738 739 744 74M 757 767 777
Ceterum autem censeo, Moscovia esse delendam
 
benjjk
Posts: 335
Joined: Fri Aug 08, 2014 4:29 am

Re: Updated: Aeroflot 1492 SSJ100 fire at Moscow (SVO) - 40+ confirmed dead

Tue May 21, 2019 6:26 am

The update is damning on the captain. We talk about passengers losing their mind in an emergency but it looks like the crew lost theirs in the air. My heart goes out to the guy in the Daily Mail hit-piece, he reacted badly but people are out for his blood when he's not the one who created the mess to begin with.

What's the reasoning behind the spoilers being unable to deploy automatically in direct law?
 
User avatar
mtzguerrero
Posts: 10
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2018 9:56 pm

Re: Updated: Aeroflot 1492 SSJ100 fire at Moscow (SVO) - 40+ confirmed dead

Tue May 21, 2019 6:46 am

benjjk wrote:
What's the reasoning behind the spoilers being unable to deploy automatically in direct law?


I don't think they were unable to deploy, but more like not automatically deployed.
 
tu204
Posts: 1916
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 12:36 am

Re: Updated: Aeroflot 1492 SSJ100 fire at Moscow (SVO) - 40+ confirmed dead

Tue May 21, 2019 11:14 am

mtzguerrero wrote:
benjjk wrote:
What's the reasoning behind the spoilers being unable to deploy automatically in direct law?


I don't think they were unable to deploy, but more like not automatically deployed.


Yes, you must select them manually. They will not deploy automatically upon touchdown in Direct Law. But perhaps that is something the crew forgot as well.
I do not dream about movie stars, they must dream about me for I am real and they are not. - Alexander Popov
 
tu204
Posts: 1916
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 12:36 am

Re: Updated: Aeroflot 1492 SSJ100 fire at Moscow (SVO) - 40+ confirmed dead

Tue May 21, 2019 11:18 am

F9Animal wrote:
redcap1962 wrote:
AV-Herald published an update per May 18 (highlighted in yellow) obviously based on data from the FDR:
http://avherald.com/h?article=4c78f3e6&opt=0

In the last third of the report it is mentioned that "... the captain began to apply oscillating pitch inputs with increasing amplitude which changed the pitch angle up to +6 and -2 degrees." There were three touch-downs, the last of which in "excess of +5G resulting in the destruction of the construction, a fuel spill and fire."



What do you guys think will happen to these pilots? Are their careers over? Could they be facing charges for the loss of life? I actually feel kind of bad for them. I couldn't imagine making a botched landing and facing the wrath from it.


I would be surprised if at least the PIC isn't going to be charged with article 268 (I think that's it anyhow) - Causing death by negligence of two or more persons.

That's a year down the road anyways. The Prosecution office can't take him to court until the official IAC investigation is over.
I do not dream about movie stars, they must dream about me for I am real and they are not. - Alexander Popov
 
tu204
Posts: 1916
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 12:36 am

Re: Updated: Aeroflot 1492 SSJ100 fire at Moscow (SVO) - 40+ confirmed dead

Tue May 21, 2019 11:22 am

Phosphorus wrote:
SamYeager2016 wrote:
Just how much training did the pilots have in using direct law? I suspect the answer will be "not a lot" which is on Aeroflot however that will probably be swept under the carpet unless the pilots are lucky.


Some pages before, I was quoting a rumor in Russian aviation circles -- that Aeroflot, relatively recently, restricted direct law experience to a sim training every six month for SSJ pilots. Actual flight training in direct law is apparently forbidden. Again, this is reported to be a recent phenomenon. Take it for what it's worth...


I doubt any airline anywhere in the world would risk flying a SSJ/Airbus purposely in Direct Law. To engage Direct Law you have to knock out (turn off) one of the Air Data Computers by pulling it's respective circuit breaker.
I do not dream about movie stars, they must dream about me for I am real and they are not. - Alexander Popov
 
benjjk
Posts: 335
Joined: Fri Aug 08, 2014 4:29 am

Re: Updated: Aeroflot 1492 SSJ100 fire at Moscow (SVO) - 40+ confirmed dead

Tue May 21, 2019 11:23 pm

tu204 wrote:
mtzguerrero wrote:
benjjk wrote:
What's the reasoning behind the spoilers being unable to deploy automatically in direct law?


I don't think they were unable to deploy, but more like not automatically deployed.


Yes, you must select them manually. They will not deploy automatically upon touchdown in Direct Law. But perhaps that is something the crew forgot as well.


I understand that, but do you know why it has been designed that way? Is there some technical limitation?
 
tu204
Posts: 1916
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 12:36 am

Re: Updated: Aeroflot 1492 SSJ100 fire at Moscow (SVO) - 40+ confirmed dead

Wed May 22, 2019 4:41 am

benjjk wrote:
tu204 wrote:
mtzguerrero wrote:

I don't think they were unable to deploy, but more like not automatically deployed.


Yes, you must select them manually. They will not deploy automatically upon touchdown in Direct Law. But perhaps that is something the crew forgot as well.


I understand that, but do you know why it has been designed that way? Is there some technical limitation?


My guess is that in Direct Law it is assumed that there is a major fault in the operating logic and automatisation. Therefore said automatisation is brought down to an absolute minimum, including stuff like automatic deployment/retraction of anything (flaps, spoilers).

That is my guess, but if you think about it - makes sense. Hypothetical scenario - your Main Landing Gear sensors or computer has gone haywire and tells the autospoilers to deploy when you are in the air and really don't want them to deploy. Much worse than you having to pull the handle manually and have them deploy (if you have a clue what you are doing in Direct Law, that is).

Anyone with Airbus experience shed some light if it is the same on the bus?
I do not dream about movie stars, they must dream about me for I am real and they are not. - Alexander Popov
 
namezero111111
Posts: 135
Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2014 7:05 pm

Re: Updated: Aeroflot 1492 SSJ100 fire at Moscow (SVO) - 40+ confirmed dead

Wed May 22, 2019 5:36 am

tu204 wrote:
I doubt any airline anywhere in the world would risk flying a SSJ/Airbus purposely in Direct Law. To engage Direct Law you have to knock out (turn off) one of the Air Data Computers by pulling it's respective circuit breaker.


If Direct Law is indeed the pop of a single circuit breaker (single failure) away it should be practiced much more often should it not?
 
User avatar
Phosphorus
Posts: 553
Joined: Tue May 16, 2017 11:38 am

Re: Updated: Aeroflot 1492 SSJ100 fire at Moscow (SVO) - 40+ confirmed dead

Wed May 22, 2019 6:31 am

tu204 wrote:
Phosphorus wrote:
SamYeager2016 wrote:
Just how much training did the pilots have in using direct law? I suspect the answer will be "not a lot" which is on Aeroflot however that will probably be swept under the carpet unless the pilots are lucky.


Some pages before, I was quoting a rumor in Russian aviation circles -- that Aeroflot, relatively recently, restricted direct law experience to a sim training every six month for SSJ pilots. Actual flight training in direct law is apparently forbidden. Again, this is reported to be a recent phenomenon. Take it for what it's worth...


I doubt any airline anywhere in the world would risk flying a SSJ/Airbus purposely in Direct Law. To engage Direct Law you have to knock out (turn off) one of the Air Data Computers by pulling it's respective circuit breaker.


The rumor was fairly specific -- the directive to cut back Direct Law training and forbid actual Direct Law practice on airplanes was fresh. Whether the direct law was ever practiced by line pilots in Aeroflot in the air, rather than in sims -- I wouldn't know either way. But the rumor alleges there was a document circulated, stating these limitations.
We probably will never know, as if such a document was ever to exist, it would be a damning indictment to whoever wrote it (up the hierarchy of Aeroflot, presumably). So a quick cover-up is in order. Probably a document with identical number and date already exists, with totally different contents -- something innocent.
AN4 A40 L4T TU3 TU5 IL6 ILW I93 F50 F70 100 146 ARJ AT7 DH4 L10 CRJ ERJ E90 E95 DC-9 MD-8X YK4 YK2 SF3 S20 319 320 321 332 333 343 346 722 732 733 734 735 73G 738 739 744 74M 757 767 777
Ceterum autem censeo, Moscovia esse delendam
 
tu204
Posts: 1916
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 12:36 am

Re: Updated: Aeroflot 1492 SSJ100 fire at Moscow (SVO) - 40+ confirmed dead

Wed May 22, 2019 7:35 am

@namezero and Phosphorus:

I totally agree that manual flying (as in Direct Law) should be practiced a hell of alot more often than during your refresher once every 6 months on FBW aircraft that when operated "Normally" have a load of protections and don't let you fly the plane. If that isn't done than the guys up front are pilots once every 6 months (unless they fly a Yak or Cessna st the local aeroclub for kicks).

If that was the case we wouldn't have this crash, AF447, AirAsia to name a few off the top of my head and others. Plus others to come.

@Phosphorous - can't say anything about SU cutting down on Sim training with Direct Law, but as far as "actual" flying goes in Direct Law - ask any Airbus pilot if they ever flew one in Direct Law (and they are not test pilots and didn't declare Pan-Pan when they were doing it....)
The SSJ's and the Bus' logic is pretty similar from what I can tell.
I do not dream about movie stars, they must dream about me for I am real and they are not. - Alexander Popov
 
rilex037
Posts: 6
Joined: Mon May 06, 2019 7:23 pm

Re: Updated: Aeroflot 1492 SSJ100 fire at Moscow (SVO) - 40+ confirmed dead

Thu May 23, 2019 2:10 am

Isn't direct law automatically enabled while landing anyway, I don't understand this discussion
 
N212R
Posts: 207
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 5:18 pm

Re: Updated: Aeroflot 1492 SSJ100 fire at Moscow (SVO) - 40+ confirmed dead

Thu May 23, 2019 2:58 am

tu204 wrote:

My guess is that in Direct Law it is assumed that there is a major fault in the operating logic and automatisation.


You are saying that LIGHTNING caused a major fault in the operating logic and automatisation? Is it possible?

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos