User avatar
OneSexyL1011
Posts: 239
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:10 pm

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

Mon May 06, 2019 5:22 pm

B737Captain1980 wrote:
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.

I am sure people would probably bang and try to open them, but once they realize its a lost cause they may just move on. Still probably less time involved over opening and grabbing your bags. Or just possibly make an announcement thats part of the preflight safety briefing stating as much.
"Overhead bins will remain locked during taxi, take off, landing and in the event of an emergency evacuation"

Thats about all we can really do I think.
 
User avatar
N202PA
Posts: 1287
Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2000 9:44 pm

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

Mon May 06, 2019 5:31 pm

Has this video been posted? I'm not sure if it's real or a clever forgery (at the end)...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEs9exbTDqI
 
32andBelow
Posts: 4047
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 2:54 am

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

Mon May 06, 2019 5:38 pm

Blimpie wrote:
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.

It makes absolutely no sense that a regional jet would have to EVER dump fuel. If the gear can’t handle a MTOW Landing on a plane that size then the plane absolutely sucks.
 
N212R
Posts: 222
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 5:18 pm

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

Mon May 06, 2019 5:38 pm

SpaceshipDC10 wrote:
Obviously you haven't seen the landing CCTV footage.


Obvious is too close to oblivious for this mind's comfort.
 
TWA902fly
Posts: 3067
Joined: Fri Dec 31, 1999 5:47 am

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

Mon May 06, 2019 5:47 pm

LAXBUR wrote:
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.


I have relatives in Moscow. They all said there was indeed lightning that day. This is an easy fact to verify.

'902
life wasn't worth the balance, or the crumpled paper it was written on
 
N766UA
Posts: 8246
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 1999 3:50 am

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

Mon May 06, 2019 5:48 pm

Am I the only one who thinks the CCTV footage looks an awful lot like that of the Challenger crash in Aspen a few years ago? Basically what happened was they came in too fast with a tailwind, bounced it, the ground lift dumping (spoilers) deployed, and the airplane nosed over hard into the ground.
Last edited by N766UA on Mon May 06, 2019 5:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
Angelovo
Posts: 21
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2018 12:19 pm

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

Mon May 06, 2019 5:49 pm

N212R wrote:
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.


zeke wrote:

I didn’t notice any convective clouds in the videos


Living about 10 km away from SVO, I can confirm that we had lightning, thunder, gusting winds and rain around 18:00L, this however only for a very short time, the center was apparently further away and moved quickly. Strong enough however to blow our garden furniture around.
A300,A310,A318,A319,A320,A321,A330,A340,A380,AN24,ATR42,ATR72,BAE146,B727,B737,B747,B757,B767,B777,CRJ100,CRJ200, CRJ900,DC9,DC10,DHC8,E145,E170,E190,F28,F50,F70,F100,IL62,IL96,L1011,MD80,MD11,RJ85,SF340,SSJ100,TU134,TU154,YK40,YK42
 
khobar95
Posts: 19
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2018 10:10 pm

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

Mon May 06, 2019 6:27 pm

32andBelow wrote:
khobar95 wrote:
32andBelow wrote:
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?


I dare say if all the crew is dead, you are too so no worries.

Seriously, there is no single answer. If your life is in danger, take action as long as you don't endanger someone else.
 
trnswrld
Posts: 1369
Joined: Sat May 22, 1999 2:19 am

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

Mon May 06, 2019 6:33 pm

Wow ok, seeing that approach video from in the cabin, what the heck?? It looks like a perfectly normal approach. Geeez, what happened?
Last edited by trnswrld on Mon May 06, 2019 6:40 pm, edited 2 times in total.
 
Armadillo1
Posts: 518
Joined: Thu Apr 20, 2017 5:14 pm

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

Mon May 06, 2019 6:38 pm

https://youtu.be/uZLfyYDXUJI
transporting plane remains
 
twinotter
Posts: 236
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 3:13 am

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

Mon May 06, 2019 6:41 pm

OneSexyL1011 wrote:
Thats about all we can really do I think.


No it isn't. Ban carry on luggage. Problem solved.
 
User avatar
Moose135
Posts: 3074
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 11:27 pm

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

Mon May 06, 2019 6:48 pm

twinotter wrote:
No it isn't. Ban carry on luggage. Problem solved.

And who do I call when I arrive at the airport ready to head to an important business meeting, and the laptop in my checked bag has gone missing? Or the expensive camera gear? Or the prescription medicine I need to stay alive?
KC-135 - Passing gas and taking names!
 
Armadillo1
Posts: 518
Joined: Thu Apr 20, 2017 5:14 pm

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

Mon May 06, 2019 6:50 pm

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=1421915
here one of topics about luggage
 
144modeller
Posts: 31
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2016 9:52 pm

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

Mon May 06, 2019 6:54 pm

Just saw BBC's news video, and I agree with "na" (post #400). The tail end scrape seems to have caused the fire, giving the impression that the plane was on fire before the landing.
A couple of thoughts. 1) Having seen fire crews deployed for emergency landings, they always approach the aircraft from the rear, presumably to prevent them from being hit by a high-speed out-of-control plane. This means that even at high road-vehicle speeds, they have to catch up with a target that passes them at up to 200mph, hence an unavoidable delay.
2) I remember the British Airtours crash at Manchester very well. I also remember one of the survivors being interviewed by the BBC, and proudly boasting how he disobeyed the instructions of the crew, and trampled over other passengers in order to ensure his own escape. Now HE is one who should be charged with murder.
 
THS214
Posts: 254
Joined: Thu Jul 27, 2017 4:01 pm

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

Mon May 06, 2019 7:02 pm

na wrote:
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.


Not strange at all. He's clearly in shock and in a denial mode. That's normal behavior.

Normal landing and everyone would have walked away or it would have been something that pilots could not do anything more to save people. Pilots mistake -- 41 people dead. Too much to bear at the moment and you go to denial mode.

NOTE: I don't know what happened in the cockpit only how people act in a crisis.
 
TWA902fly
Posts: 3067
Joined: Fri Dec 31, 1999 5:47 am

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

Mon May 06, 2019 7:17 pm

I'm slightly focused on the switch from squawk 7600 to 7700. Would the pilots have made this switch if they believed their only problem was no radios throughout the entire flight? Or is 7700 a necessity to make a landing at a controlled airport without talking to the controllers? Because the way I read it, it sounds like at first there was 7600 (no radios), and then they realized a much bigger problem may have occurred, thus 7700 (emergency). Thoughts?

'902
life wasn't worth the balance, or the crumpled paper it was written on
 
AtomicGarden
Posts: 400
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2017 10:57 pm

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

Mon May 06, 2019 7:30 pm

PlanesNTrains wrote:
AtomicGarden wrote:
SEU wrote:

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.



Sorry then. I've been having trouble with sarcasm lately.
You killed a black astronaut, Cyril! That's like killing a unicorn!
 
User avatar
Finn350
Posts: 1595
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 4:57 am

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

Mon May 06, 2019 7:33 pm

TWA902fly wrote:
I'm slightly focused on the switch from squawk 7600 to 7700. Would the pilots have made this switch if they believed their only problem was no radios throughout the entire flight? Or is 7700 a necessity to make a landing at a controlled airport without talking to the controllers? Because the way I read it, it sounds like at first there was 7600 (no radios), and then they realized a much bigger problem may have occurred, thus 7700 (emergency). Thoughts?

'902


It might be that first they lost communications and then later flight controls degraded to direct law which prompted to squawk 7700.
 
User avatar
SheikhDjibouti
Posts: 1865
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2017 4:59 pm

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

Mon May 06, 2019 7:42 pm

Finn350 wrote:
TWA902fly wrote:
I'm slightly focused on the switch from squawk 7600 to 7700. Would the pilots have made this switch if they believed their only problem was no radios throughout the entire flight? Or is 7700 a necessity to make a landing at a controlled airport without talking to the controllers? Because the way I read it, it sounds like at first there was 7600 (no radios), and then they realized a much bigger problem may have occurred, thus 7700 (emergency). Thoughts?

'902


It might be that first they lost communications and then later flight controls degraded to direct law which prompted to squawk 7700.

That is one possibility; here is another;
If they had gone directly to 7700, ATC might have wasted several minutes trying to contact them by radio.
Hitting 7600 followed by 7700 gives ATC a bigger picture.
Nothing to see here; move along please.
 
richardc1983
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon May 06, 2019 8:50 am

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

Mon May 06, 2019 7:49 pm

richardc1983 wrote:
Hey everyone, I used to be a regular on this forum but cannot access my old account as I no longer have access to the email account I had it registered with.

In the external videos, does anyone notice the smoke billowing out of what looks to be a triangular piece sticking up on the top of the fuselage? Looks to be some sort of vent. Also on some of the videos one of the engines look to be running still, I guess they will have initiated the shut down but does this differ in an emergency situation is there a switch that can be flicked like you would in a factory to shut everything down quickly?

The video that was posted from the interior of the plane when it landed shows that smoke is coming in, I can’t tell if this looks to be coming through the vents. So do you think the air conditioning system will have been pumping in smoke from the engines or would the pilots have shut these down knowing there was a fire?

That bing bong sound though which we all hear throughout every flight is haunting.


Any thoughts on the above folks?
 
rilex037
Posts: 6
Joined: Mon May 06, 2019 7:23 pm

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

Mon May 06, 2019 7:52 pm

https://ibb.co/1mqT07x
Looking at the flight data, it seems odd how slow they were at this point; I wish i could have correct IAS value, but it looked close to stalling, given their landing weight;
 
aumaverick
Posts: 58
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 12:40 pm

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

Mon May 06, 2019 7:56 pm

Regarding the theorized flight control degradation to direct law, could this mode of control result in the crew having reduced control input on approach and be a cause of the poor landing? Or put another way, would the crew be hampered by the direct law control inputs and thus have a bad landing?

The link here outlines the Airbus flight control laws: http://www.airbusdriver.net/airbus_fltlaws.htm
I'm just here so I won't get fined. - Marshawn Lynch
 
Varsity1
Posts: 2028
Joined: Mon May 02, 2016 4:55 am

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

Mon May 06, 2019 8:00 pm

aumaverick wrote:
Regarding the theorized flight control degradation to direct law, could this mode of control result in the crew having reduced control input on approach and be a cause of the poor landing? Or put another way, would the crew be hampered by the direct law control inputs and thus have a bad landing?

The link here outlines the Airbus flight control laws: http://www.airbusdriver.net/airbus_fltlaws.htm



The pilots shouldn't be guessing and evaluating what 'law' they are in, especially in an emergency.

We have too much automation in airplanes, and it's killing us.
"PPRuNe will no longer allow discussions regarding Etihad Airlines, its employees, executives, agents, or other representatives. Such threads will be deleted." - ME3 thug airlines suing anyone who brings negative information public..
 
mxaxai
Posts: 1202
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:29 am

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

Mon May 06, 2019 8:14 pm

aumaverick wrote:
Regarding the theorized flight control degradation to direct law, could this mode of control result in the crew having reduced control input on approach and be a cause of the poor landing? Or put another way, would the crew be hampered by the direct law control inputs and thus have a bad landing?

The link here outlines the Airbus flight control laws: http://www.airbusdriver.net/airbus_fltlaws.htm

Traditional direct law on FBW aircraft gives you just that - the aileron/rudder/elevator deflection is directly coupled to the stick deflection. Like a traditional direct, mechanical coupling on non-FBW aircraft. I don't know the specfics of the SSJ or what exactly happened in this crash, but direct law should leave your aircraft fully controllable (albeit with slightly altered behavior).
Btw the entire FBW system is developed by Liebherr Aerospace and is reportedly similar to Airbus systems.

If the pilots had little experience with operation in this mode, the aircraft might have responded more sluggish (or more abrupt) than what they expected. FBW can also sometimes be used to mask undesirable stability characteristics (like MCAS), a protection that would vanish in direct law. The aircraft doesn't become uncontrollable but does react differently and sometimes less "friendly".
 
trnswrld
Posts: 1369
Joined: Sat May 22, 1999 2:19 am

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

Mon May 06, 2019 8:16 pm

For those that still haven’t seen it....watch the in cabin approach and initial touchdown video filmed from the left side just in front of the engine. I can’t seem to find it from its initial post on this or the previous page, looks as if it was deleted. IMO this approach looks very normal to me....even the speed. What the heck caused that extreme bounce and impact?! Damn, so sad that this plane was so close to what would have seemed like a routine landing ;(

https://youtu.be/rEs9exbTDqI
Last edited by trnswrld on Mon May 06, 2019 8:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
dampfnudel
Posts: 456
Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2006 9:42 am

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

Mon May 06, 2019 8:19 pm

twinotter wrote:
OneSexyL1011 wrote:
Thats about all we can really do I think.


No it isn't. Ban carry on luggage. Problem solved.

Another option would be to give flight attendants the ability to automatically lock all bins during an emergency in anticipation of this type of behavior during evac. Banning carry on luggage would force carriers to drop checked luggage fees and I don’t think they want to give up that. Nor do passengers want to check in expensive gear/electronics or vital medication that may be damaged or stolen.
Last edited by dampfnudel on Mon May 06, 2019 8:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
A313 332 343 B703 712 722 732 73G 738 739 741 742 744 752 762 76E 764 772 AT5 CR9 D10 DHH DHT F27 GRM L10 M83 TU5

AA AI CO CL DE DL EA HA KL LH N7 PA PQ SK RO TW UA YR
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9526
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

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

Mon May 06, 2019 8:21 pm

trnswrld wrote:
For those that still haven’t seen it....watch the in cabin approach and initial touchdown video filmed from the left side just in front of the engine. I can’t seem to find it from its initial post on this or the previous page, looks as if it was deleted. IMO this approach looks very normal to me....even the speed. What the heck caused that extreme bounce and impact?! Damn, so sad that this plane was so close to what would have seemed like a routine landing ;(

https://youtu.be/rEs9exbTDqI


Are you presenting that as video from this crash? I ask because it doesn't "show" a crash (unless a hard landing is a crash) and it has 33 thumbs up but 51 thumbs down - usually a sign that it's fake or misrepresenting something.
-Dave


MAX’d out on MAX threads. If you are starting a thread, and it’s about the MAX - stop. There’s already a thread that covers it.
 
hivue
Posts: 1957
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 2:26 am

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

Mon May 06, 2019 8:24 pm

na wrote:
The pilots had serious control problems on landing. High speed, bounce, then the nose went down and just before the plane touched down hard the nose was raised rather steeply to avoid a nosewheel first landing (overreaction?), causing the airplane to hit the runway with the center of gravity further back than normal. Maybe even the tail scraped the runway on touchdown.
Would the loss of stable radio contact be reason enough to cause the pilots to return? If so matters must have become much worse when approaching the airport. Otherwise such a bad landing in good weather cannot be explained.


The original (in the CCTV video) touchdown looks to me to have been nose gear first. I would think this would imply an unstable approach previously. The crew elected (for likely some good reason) not to abort the landing. The second (per CCTV) touchdown appeared hard enough to cause structural damage (main gear or whatever) that could result in a significant fuel leak.
"You're sitting. In a chair. In the SKY!!" ~ Louis C.K.
 
aumaverick
Posts: 58
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 12:40 pm

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

Mon May 06, 2019 8:34 pm

mxaxai wrote:
aumaverick wrote:
Regarding the theorized flight control degradation to direct law, could this mode of control result in the crew having reduced control input on approach and be a cause of the poor landing? Or put another way, would the crew be hampered by the direct law control inputs and thus have a bad landing?

The link here outlines the Airbus flight control laws: http://www.airbusdriver.net/airbus_fltlaws.htm

Traditional direct law on FBW aircraft gives you just that - the aileron/rudder/elevator deflection is directly coupled to the stick deflection. Like a traditional direct, mechanical coupling on non-FBW aircraft. I don't know the specfics of the SSJ or what exactly happened in this crash, but direct law should leave your aircraft fully controllable (albeit with slightly altered behavior).
Btw the entire FBW system is developed by Liebherr Aerospace and is reportedly similar to Airbus systems.

If the pilots had little experience with operation in this mode, the aircraft might have responded more sluggish (or more abrupt) than what they expected. FBW can also sometimes be used to mask undesirable stability characteristics (like MCAS), a protection that would vanish in direct law. The aircraft doesn't become uncontrollable but does react differently and sometimes less "friendly".


A great response and in-line with what I was thinking. If indeed the SSJ FBW has some sort of degraded control in the event of a system failure similar to Airbus, then I wonder if the crew might have experienced a less "friendly" situation of control on approach. Coupled with the close to MGW landing weight, radio failures and other unknowns, I speculate this might be an additional contributing factor.

As for the cabin-view video in the link https://youtu.be/rEs9exbTDqI, I think others on here have all noted it was a fake, or at the least, has not been corroborated as the other confirmed videos of passengers and CCtv. Can we please leave it out for further replies?
I'm just here so I won't get fined. - Marshawn Lynch
 
User avatar
FredrikHAD
Posts: 445
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2015 9:44 pm

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

Mon May 06, 2019 8:35 pm

144modeller wrote:
1) Having seen fire crews deployed for emergency landings, they always approach the aircraft from the rear, presumably to prevent them from being hit by a high-speed out-of-control plane. This means that even at high road-vehicle speeds, they have to catch up with a target that passes them at up to 200mph, hence an unavoidable delay.

At an airport this size, you spread your resources but focuses on the most likely areas. Total engine failure = no need for resources at the end of the runway. No flaps = no need for resources at the beginning of the runway etc. Yes, you chase the plane, but you should be at speed, and should not start from still standing once the aircraft stops. Obviously, in a case like this, there should have been at least some rescue vehicles further down the runway (on the taxiways). Those should meet the skidding aircraft, but obviously avoid it... Once it is apparent the aircraft will stop before your location, you accelerate towards the aircraft.

The more I see of the fire fighting ”efforts”, the more I question what they were doing.

/Fredrik
 
trnswrld
Posts: 1369
Joined: Sat May 22, 1999 2:19 am

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

Mon May 06, 2019 8:35 pm

PlanesNTrains wrote:
trnswrld wrote:
For those that still haven’t seen it....watch the in cabin approach and initial touchdown video filmed from the left side just in front of the engine. I can’t seem to find it from its initial post on this or the previous page, looks as if it was deleted. IMO this approach looks very normal to me....even the speed. What the heck caused that extreme bounce and impact?! Damn, so sad that this plane was so close to what would have seemed like a routine landing ;(

https://youtu.be/rEs9exbTDqI


Are you presenting that as video from this crash? I ask because it doesn't "show" a crash (unless a hard landing is a crash) and it has 33 thumbs up but 51 thumbs down - usually a sign that it's fake or misrepresenting something.


Well sorta, I mean just basing it off the title of the video. I tried cross referencing visual cues to see if it is legit but came up inconclusive. Video stops after first impact or hard landing which also doesn’t help since in this crash the first touchdown would have seemed like a hard landing as well. Can anyone else chime in to see if this video is even legit. Shouldn’t be too hard for someone familiar with the area to look at visual cues.

If this video is not of the accident aircraft then mods by all means delete please. Sorry, so much crap spreads through the internet.
 
rilex037
Posts: 6
Joined: Mon May 06, 2019 7:23 pm

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

Mon May 06, 2019 8:55 pm

trnswrld wrote:
PlanesNTrains wrote:
trnswrld wrote:
For those that still haven’t seen it....watch the in cabin approach and initial touchdown video filmed from the left side just in front of the engine. I can’t seem to find it from its initial post on this or the previous page, looks as if it was deleted. IMO this approach looks very normal to me....even the speed. What the heck caused that extreme bounce and impact?! Damn, so sad that this plane was so close to what would have seemed like a routine landing ;(

https://youtu.be/rEs9exbTDqI


Are you presenting that as video from this crash? I ask because it doesn't "show" a crash (unless a hard landing is a crash) and it has 33 thumbs up but 51 thumbs down - usually a sign that it's fake or misrepresenting something.


Well sorta, I mean just basing it off the title of the video. I tried cross referencing visual cues to see if it is legit but came up inconclusive. Video stops after first impact or hard landing which also doesn’t help since in this crash the first touchdown would have seemed like a hard landing as well. Can anyone else chime in to see if this video is even legit. Shouldn’t be too hard for someone familiar with the area to look at visual cues.

If this video is not of the accident aircraft then mods by all means delete please. Sorry, so much crap spreads through the internet.



Hard to tell if its fake,

Pros: same livery, same airport, same time of day;
Cons: video quality is from like 10 years ago and it appears the video has been cut; I would imagine second ground impact was much more severe, and most importantly, no media has released this footage;
 
MalevTU134
Posts: 2188
Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2016 8:04 pm

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

Mon May 06, 2019 8:59 pm

trnswrld wrote:
PlanesNTrains wrote:
trnswrld wrote:
For those that still haven’t seen it....watch the in cabin approach and initial touchdown video filmed from the left side just in front of the engine. I can’t seem to find it from its initial post on this or the previous page, looks as if it was deleted. IMO this approach looks very normal to me....even the speed. What the heck caused that extreme bounce and impact?! Damn, so sad that this plane was so close to what would have seemed like a routine landing ;(

https://youtu.be/rEs9exbTDqI


Are you presenting that as video from this crash? I ask because it doesn't "show" a crash (unless a hard landing is a crash) and it has 33 thumbs up but 51 thumbs down - usually a sign that it's fake or misrepresenting something.


Well sorta, I mean just basing it off the title of the video. I tried cross referencing visual cues to see if it is legit but came up inconclusive. Video stops after first impact or hard landing which also doesn’t help since in this crash the first touchdown would have seemed like a hard landing as well. Can anyone else chime in to see if this video is even legit. Shouldn’t be too hard for someone familiar with the area to look at visual cues.

If this video is not of the accident aircraft then mods by all means delete please. Sorry, so much crap spreads through the internet.

In the comments to the video, it says it is identical to a video from March of 2016. No link to that video is made, though.
 
32andBelow
Posts: 4047
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 2:54 am

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

Mon May 06, 2019 9:09 pm

khobar95 wrote:
32andBelow wrote:
khobar95 wrote:

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?


I dare say if all the crew is dead, you are too so no worries.

Seriously, there is no single answer. If your life is in danger, take action as long as you don't endanger someone else.

UAL232 is an example on when it was such a mess the pax just all had to do their own thing.
 
THS214
Posts: 254
Joined: Thu Jul 27, 2017 4:01 pm

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

Mon May 06, 2019 9:17 pm

FredrikHAD wrote:
144modeller wrote:
1) Having seen fire crews deployed for emergency landings, they always approach the aircraft from the rear, presumably to prevent them from being hit by a high-speed out-of-control plane. This means that even at high road-vehicle speeds, they have to catch up with a target that passes them at up to 200mph, hence an unavoidable delay.

At an airport this size, you spread your resources but focuses on the most likely areas. Total engine failure = no need for resources at the end of the runway. No flaps = no need for resources at the beginning of the runway etc. Yes, you chase the plane, but you should be at speed, and should not start from still standing once the aircraft stops. Obviously, in a case like this, there should have been at least some rescue vehicles further down the runway (on the taxiways). Those should meet the skidding aircraft, but obviously avoid it... Once it is apparent the aircraft will stop before your location, you accelerate towards the aircraft.

The more I see of the fire fighting ”efforts”, the more I question what they were doing.

/Fredrik


From one video the first firefighting vehicle started fight the fire 95-100 sec after that plane come to a stop. It also look like they were not called before that fire broke out. They didn't start to calm down the plane but rather put down flames around wing, at least initially.
 
User avatar
PW100
Posts: 3942
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 9:17 pm

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

Mon May 06, 2019 9:35 pm

Varsity1 wrote:
aumaverick wrote:
Regarding the theorized flight control degradation to direct law, could this mode of control result in the crew having reduced control input on approach and be a cause of the poor landing? Or put another way, would the crew be hampered by the direct law control inputs and thus have a bad landing?

The link here outlines the Airbus flight control laws: http://www.airbusdriver.net/airbus_fltlaws.htm



The pilots shouldn't be guessing and evaluating what 'law' they are in, especially in an emergency.

We have too much automation in airplanes, and it's killing us.


Without that automation, we would see *a lot* more accidents.

The problem is that looking only at the automation-related accidents, we don't see or appreciate the number of accidents that the same automation prevented.
Removing the automation, and relying on humans solely, would be really killing us . . .
Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
 
RobertPhoenix
Posts: 121
Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2014 1:00 am

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

Mon May 06, 2019 9:49 pm

Varsity1 wrote:

We have too much automation in airplanes, and it's killing us.


Apologies if I your comment was meant as sarcasm.

If more automation meant more accidents it would be obvious from accident statistics. However, even with the tremendous increase in the derided third world pilots, we see nothing but declining accident rates.

If there is something more authoritative than Wikipedia, please show the link.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_safety

(As always, this graph would be much better with a logarithmic Y axis. That would tell us if the rate of decrease in accident rate was declining, staying the same, or accelerating)
 
User avatar
mtzguerrero
Posts: 13
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2018 9:56 pm

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

Mon May 06, 2019 9:50 pm

Varsity1 wrote:
The pilots shouldn't be guessing and evaluating what 'law' they are in, especially in an emergency.

We have too much automation in airplanes, and it's killing us.


I've been following very carefully all this forum's post and, not being a pilot but a very dedicated aircraft fan and agreeing with Varsity1 learning from the experience of another accidents, I have a little theory/question for fellow ANet forum users with FBW expertise, and you're free to correct me if wrong:

I have the impression that usual FBW pilots can get used to make strong flight control inputs with the confidence that the plane's computers will "correct" them in predictable ways, so it's reasonable to finish thinking that these are not corrections but just desirable outputs from what becomes being your everyday flying style.

So, my theory/question for this forum is: Assuming that they were in Direct Law, could commanding a sudden nouse-up on the flying pilot side stick prior or during the first touchdown expecting a normally-attenuated result to that command -for flaring or reducing speed after touchdown-, cause that violent elevation resulting in the "bounce" that we've seen in different videos?

I hope this is useful for the discussion and I'm ready to learn from your experience.
 
YYZYYT
Posts: 1044
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2005 12:41 am

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

Mon May 06, 2019 9:57 pm

ikramerica wrote:
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.


ikramerica, One of my first thoughts too. It did look as if the fuselage was being consumed within 45 seconds to a minute on those first videos (though its hard to say for real, will need to wait for the investigation) .... there was certainly smoke pouring our of the doors and cockpit windows quickly.

I did go back and take a quick look at the 1988 / BA Manchester report, and I noticed that the fuselage in that case also burned though pretty quickly, within 1 minute of the plane coming to a stop, approx 1:45 from the initial explosion. That's similar to this case (and here, it's hard to imagine the fuselage not being compromised). Perhaps its the intensity of the fire, with the amount of fuel spilling out.

Does anyone know if there's a standard for fire rating that aircraft need to met to get certified?
 
User avatar
Phosphorus
Posts: 671
Joined: Tue May 16, 2017 11:38 am

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

Mon May 06, 2019 10:41 pm

mtzguerrero wrote:
Varsity1 wrote:
The pilots shouldn't be guessing and evaluating what 'law' they are in, especially in an emergency.

We have too much automation in airplanes, and it's killing us.


I've been following very carefully all this forum's post and, not being a pilot but a very dedicated aircraft fan and agreeing with Varsity1 learning from the experience of another accidents, I have a little theory/question for fellow ANet forum users with FBW expertise, and you're free to correct me if wrong:

I have the impression that usual FBW pilots can get used to make strong flight control inputs with the confidence that the plane's computers will "correct" them in predictable ways, so it's reasonable to finish thinking that these are not corrections but just desirable outputs from what becomes being your everyday flying style.

So, my theory/question for this forum is: Assuming that they were in Direct Law, could commanding a sudden nouse-up on the flying pilot side stick prior or during the first touchdown expecting a normally-attenuated result to that command -for flaring or reducing speed after touchdown-, cause that violent elevation resulting in the "bounce" that we've seen in different videos?

I hope this is useful for the discussion and I'm ready to learn from your experience.


A rumour is circulating that Aeroflot cut back on "direct law" pilot practice recently on SSJ-100 fleet. Pilots get minimum mandatory simulator training every six months, and are banned from practicing it in-flight. 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
 
User avatar
Blimpie
Posts: 303
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2014 3:48 pm

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

Mon May 06, 2019 10:51 pm

32andBelow wrote:
Blimpie wrote:
32andBelow wrote:
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.

It makes absolutely no sense that a regional jet would have to EVER dump fuel. If the gear can’t handle a MTOW Landing on a plane that size then the plane absolutely sucks.


And, yet, had the plane dumped its fuel, how many people would possibly have survived? Maybe some, perhaps all, or possibly none; however, without a full load of fuel, the fire that consumed the plane may have been dramatically less.
Now get the hell off of my lawn your dang kids!
 
User avatar
mtzguerrero
Posts: 13
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2018 9:56 pm

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

Mon May 06, 2019 11:14 pm

Phosphorus wrote:
A rumour is circulating that Aeroflot cut back on "direct law" pilot practice recently on SSJ-100 fleet. Pilots get minimum mandatory simulator training every six months, and are banned from practicing it in-flight. Take it for what it's worth.


I hope that's not the case. Nobody can be off-guard completely relying in flight augmentation. Those are great features but pilots have to get fresh basic flying skills for when it's needed.
 
User avatar
SierraPacific
Posts: 371
Joined: Sun May 13, 2018 1:48 am

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

Mon May 06, 2019 11:38 pm

PW100 wrote:
Varsity1 wrote:
aumaverick wrote:
Regarding the theorized flight control degradation to direct law, could this mode of control result in the crew having reduced control input on approach and be a cause of the poor landing? Or put another way, would the crew be hampered by the direct law control inputs and thus have a bad landing?

The link here outlines the Airbus flight control laws: http://www.airbusdriver.net/airbus_fltlaws.htm



The pilots shouldn't be guessing and evaluating what 'law' they are in, especially in an emergency.

We have too much automation in airplanes, and it's killing us.


Without that automation, we would see *a lot* more accidents.

The problem is that looking only at the automation-related accidents, we don't see or appreciate the number of accidents that the same automation prevented.
Removing the automation, and relying on humans solely, would be really killing us . . .


I think that dependence on Automation is a huge problem that has caused most accidents in the past 15 years so saying that the automation only has pros and no cons is rather disingenuous. If this was a degradation to direct law and the pilots were not trained or experienced enough with the handling of the jet in that control mode, I foresee a big change in training regarding control laws.

I do believe we have hit the penultimate when it comes to automation in the flight deck and that further automation tools being introduced will cause more accidents than it prevents because of the amount of technical know how that is required and the sheer amount of information that bombards the pilots in an emergency.

If I had unlimited money, It would be very interesting to see how a less advanced airplane (Say a 727) is flown with modern CRM and the incident rate on it compared to a modern day aircraft flown under the CRM system. I have a hunch that counterintuitively the incident rate would be about the same since dare I say most of the crashes from the 60's-80's were CRM issues rather than issues that we see today and that the statistics are muddied from that error because of the lack of CRM.

(I am just an aviation buff and student pilot with a sociology background so if I am completely off base that is why)
Last edited by SierraPacific on Mon May 06, 2019 11:54 pm, edited 2 times in total.
 
CO 757-300
Posts: 297
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2001 7:08 am

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

Mon May 06, 2019 11:48 pm

The early mis-reporting by RT and RIA is very much a concern, though not surprising considering this was involving Aeroflot and Sukhoi. My sympathies to all the Russian people, especially those affected by this tragedy for the emotional rollercoaster they must have endured.
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 19501
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

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

Mon May 06, 2019 11:53 pm

musicrab wrote:
Kilopond wrote:
Reportedly some passengers slowed down the evacuation by saving their personal belongings.

Komsomlskaya Pravda in Russian:

https://www.kp.ru/online/news/3467160/? ... um=desktop

It happens every time. Human nature. If I was on a plane on fire and somebody was fumbling around in the overhead locker I'd walk over them.


I've told my family that if someone is blocking the aisle and you can't easily get past, you might be better off making your way over the seat backs and rejoining the aisle after the "blockage". In context, I don't think my kids could push past a full grown man or woman determined to block the aisle. Whatever gets you out first. Another option is diving for the floor and crawling past by the legs of the blocking human. Don't be passively waiting for others in an evacuation.




tu204 wrote:
caaardiff wrote:
Given that this is becoming a common occurrence during emergency evacuations, should there be a way of completely locking out all (passenger use) overhead lockers by the crew before landing?
It may also slightly lessen the chance of lockers opening and bags falling out during a hard landing.


I imagine this would be extremely difficult from.an engineering point of view...


I disagree. Many new aircraft, e.g. plenty of new A320s, already have electronic latches. There's a button that opens the lock instead of a lever, with a little indicator light. Of course, everything in aviation is expensive but engineering wise adding wiring and logic for centralised control does not seem very complicated compared to lots of other things already on the aircraft. The logic could lockout the latches when the seat belt sign is on below 10000 feet.

Sure, some people would still claw at the bins during an evacuation, but the time wasted would probably be much less than if they actually got hold of their carryon and lugged it all the way outside.

Apart from evacuation, this lockout logic could be quite useful in normal operations, especially in some countries (cough cough Mainland China cough cough) where passengers routinely go for their carryon while the aircraft is still rolling out on the runway.




davidjohnson6 wrote:
Will the SSJ be grounded as a temporary precaution whilst accident investigators do their work ?


Unless there is pretty clearly a potential design flaw, there's no reason to ground an entire aircraft type. At this point, not much is known for certain.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 19501
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

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

Mon May 06, 2019 11:58 pm

Phosphorus wrote:
mtzguerrero wrote:
Varsity1 wrote:
The pilots shouldn't be guessing and evaluating what 'law' they are in, especially in an emergency.

We have too much automation in airplanes, and it's killing us.


I've been following very carefully all this forum's post and, not being a pilot but a very dedicated aircraft fan and agreeing with Varsity1 learning from the experience of another accidents, I have a little theory/question for fellow ANet forum users with FBW expertise, and you're free to correct me if wrong:

I have the impression that usual FBW pilots can get used to make strong flight control inputs with the confidence that the plane's computers will "correct" them in predictable ways, so it's reasonable to finish thinking that these are not corrections but just desirable outputs from what becomes being your everyday flying style.

So, my theory/question for this forum is: Assuming that they were in Direct Law, could commanding a sudden nouse-up on the flying pilot side stick prior or during the first touchdown expecting a normally-attenuated result to that command -for flaring or reducing speed after touchdown-, cause that violent elevation resulting in the "bounce" that we've seen in different videos?

I hope this is useful for the discussion and I'm ready to learn from your experience.


A rumour is circulating that Aeroflot cut back on "direct law" pilot practice recently on SSJ-100 fleet. Pilots get minimum mandatory simulator training every six months, and are banned from practicing it in-flight. Take it for what it's worth.


Why would you practice it in flight? That would add significant risk to normal passenger flights.

For that matter, how would you even get into Normal Law on purpose? It isn't like there's some sort of switch. (Full disclosure: I know Airbus but it sounds like the SJ-100 system is similar.)
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 19501
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

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

Tue May 07, 2019 12:01 am

SierraPacific wrote:
PW100 wrote:
Varsity1 wrote:


The pilots shouldn't be guessing and evaluating what 'law' they are in, especially in an emergency.

We have too much automation in airplanes, and it's killing us.


Without that automation, we would see *a lot* more accidents.

The problem is that looking only at the automation-related accidents, we don't see or appreciate the number of accidents that the same automation prevented.
Removing the automation, and relying on humans solely, would be really killing us . . .


I think that dependence on Automation is a huge problem that has caused most accidents in the past 15 years so saying that the automation only has pros and no cons is rather disingenuous. If this was a degradation to direct law and the pilots were not trained or experienced enough with the handling of the jet in that control mode, I foresee a big change in training regarding control laws.

I do believe we have hit the penultimate when it comes to automation in the flight deck and that further automation tools being introduced will cause more accidents than it prevents because of the amount of technical know how that is required and the sheer amount of information that bombards the pilots in an emergency.

If I had unlimited money, It would be very interesting to see how a less advanced airplane (Say a 727) is flown with modern CRM and the incident rate on it compared to a modern day aircraft flown under the CRM system. I have a hunch that counterintuitively the incident rate would be about the same since dare I say most of the crashes from the 60's-80's were CRM issues rather than issues that we see today and that the statistics are muddied from that error because of the lack of CRM.

(I am just an aviation buff and student pilot with a sociology background so if I am completely off base that is why)


I disagree about dependence on automation being the cause of "most" accidents. Runway overruns and runway incursions are a big focus in safety and are not directly related to automation.

A 727 with modern practices would be an interesting experiment, but the reliability of modern aircraft is massively higher than that of a 60s jet.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
User avatar
SierraPacific
Posts: 371
Joined: Sun May 13, 2018 1:48 am

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

Tue May 07, 2019 12:14 am

Starlionblue wrote:
SierraPacific wrote:
PW100 wrote:

Without that automation, we would see *a lot* more accidents.

The problem is that looking only at the automation-related accidents, we don't see or appreciate the number of accidents that the same automation prevented.
Removing the automation, and relying on humans solely, would be really killing us . . .


I think that dependence on Automation is a huge problem that has caused most accidents in the past 15 years so saying that the automation only has pros and no cons is rather disingenuous. If this was a degradation to direct law and the pilots were not trained or experienced enough with the handling of the jet in that control mode, I foresee a big change in training regarding control laws.

I do believe we have hit the penultimate when it comes to automation in the flight deck and that further automation tools being introduced will cause more accidents than it prevents because of the amount of technical know how that is required and the sheer amount of information that bombards the pilots in an emergency.

If I had unlimited money, It would be very interesting to see how a less advanced airplane (Say a 727) is flown with modern CRM and the incident rate on it compared to a modern day aircraft flown under the CRM system. I have a hunch that counterintuitively the incident rate would be about the same since dare I say most of the crashes from the 60's-80's were CRM issues rather than issues that we see today and that the statistics are muddied from that error because of the lack of CRM.

(I am just an aviation buff and student pilot with a sociology background so if I am completely off base that is why)


I disagree about dependence on automation being the cause of "most" accidents. Runway overruns and runway incursions are a big focus in safety and are not directly related to automation.

A 727 with modern practices would be an interesting experiment, but the reliability of modern aircraft is massively higher than that of a 60s jet.


I should have clarified on that but I was referencing catastrophic crashes like AF447 or OZ214 that were either caused by or contributed to by automation dependency rather than runway overruns. I am glad to hear that I was not completely off base when it comes to my experiment setup and the role of modern cockpit dynamics vs the older captain always right mentality.
 
sealevel
Posts: 26
Joined: Wed May 23, 2018 9:57 pm

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

Tue May 07, 2019 12:47 am

Someone please find the specs - as others indicated a smaller jet in the western world does not have the ability to dump, the 737 and A320 cannot, did the Russians incorporate it into the 100 ?
 
juliuswong
Moderator
Posts: 1875
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 3:22 am

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

Tue May 07, 2019 12:48 am

Following the Aeroflot SSJ crash, Yamal Airlines cancels an order for 10 SSJ, citing high cost of operation.

Currently they operate 15. They mentioned the cancellation is not related to the crash.

https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2019/05/ ... rts-a65501
- Life is a journey, travel it well -

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