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

SurlyBonds · Tue May 07, 2019 7:25 am

B777LRF wrote:
I'm of the absolute conviction, that my convenience should never eclipse the safety of my fellow passengers. If I can't bring my lap-top onboard, I'll have to improvise, adapt and overcome.

While we're at it, let's flip all seats 180-degrees, so that pax face the rear of the plane. That's safer, too.

cc2314 · Tue May 07, 2019 7:27 am

Muscle memory is a term used for the rebound effect a previously trained person gets when they return to the gym.
The brain is the issue here,any ingrained patterns of behavior in this situation should be ignored simply by the smell of smoke.

Starlionblue · Tue May 07, 2019 7:50 am

MD80Ttail wrote:
Starlionblue wrote:
SierraPacific wrote:

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.

How about looking at DC9 and DC10 loss rates. Same 60s design flown in scheduled service until very recently. Seems like they did just fine as compared to more modern aircraft. I’m sure someone can get us a statistic.

By "reliability" I meant in terms of maintenance requirement, not in terms of loss rate. As stated above though, newer jets have a hull loss rate an order of magnitude lower than two generations ago. So yes, modern jets are safer than those DC-9s and DC-10s.

Starlionblue · Tue May 07, 2019 7:56 am

cc2314 wrote:
Muscle memory is a term used for the rebound effect a previously trained person gets when they return to the gym.
The brain is the issue here,any ingrained patterns of behavior in this situation should be ignored simply by the smell of smoke.

That's not how the brain works. Even under "normal" stressful situations, such as being on a sim check, we make mistakes that baffle us later. As mentioned above, the brain does peculiar things under stress, and the higher the level of stress, the higher the level of peculiar. Incidentally, this is one of the reasons why we train for abnormal situations. That way if we have an engine failure or something for real, we can fall back on a learned and conditioned set of responses in the initial phases of the situation, when stress is highest.

Starlionblue · Tue May 07, 2019 7:57 am

eielef wrote:
I checked on LIVEATC that has a well coverage of the skies, but there is no coverage of SVO. Is there any other website, Russian or not, that has the recordings of the ATC that day? There should be somewhere, but I haven't found them anywhere yet...
Maybe they are hidden from the public... But SVO is not a military airport, so i'm not sure the reasons for hiding them...

They're not "hidden". They're just not publicly available. ATC has no requirement to share recordings with the general public.

Starlionblue · Tue May 07, 2019 8:03 am

eielef wrote:
I don't get it also how did the plane land without radio communications?
Say your radios and all other communication devices die while you are midflight. Say the plane is perfectly flyable, all controls work, even autopilot, you just don't have radio, or mobile phones, or nothing.
You just land whenever and wherever you feel like? I doubt you can.
So I believe ATC had cleared all the airspace around SVO and allowed the crew to land at their discretion. This sound possible, but then, how long is this clearing valid? How long can all of the Moscow air space can be closed till an aircraft on a radio malfunction/emergency (therefor 7600/7700) lands?

What if the pilot decided to land and crashed a plane that was crossing the runway, or waiting for take off clearance? It has happened many times.

What is the protocol for this, very unlikely situation?

Lost comms procedures are published and referencable on the charts and in the local Aeronautical Information Publication. First, squawk 7600 to indicate lost comms, or 7700 for mayday. This will alert ATC. Then you would normally follow your cleared route to the destination, aiming to arrive close to the last known ETA. Or as local procedures dictate.

Of course, if you have a "LAND ASAP" situation on your hands just turn for the field. You're the one with the emergency, and you do what you need to do with regards to track and altitude anyway. ATC are no longer controlling you. They're assisting you as you make the decisions. If you can't talk to them, you'll have to trust that they'll clear the way as best they can.

Pentaprism · Tue May 07, 2019 8:06 am

I find it strange that the Russian State Civil Aviation Authority (SCAA) have not grounded the Aircraft Type. They did so after the following crashes;

28/7/02 - IL86 crashed shortly after departure from SVO
29/12/12 - TU204 crashed during landing at VKO
11/2/18 - AN148 crashed shortly after departure from DME

The Superjet was also grounded after it was discovered there were some cracks were found at Stabilizer Joints.

It seems to me the Russian may be making the same mistake that Boeing and the FAA made after the Max Crash in Indonesia. Boeing came out with a lot of spin claiming everything will be fine which the FAA more or less went along with when clearly it wasn't and the Aircraft should have been grounded.

Here the very future of Russian Aviation Manufacturing is on the line. In my opinion the Superjet is not far off being a very good Aircraft and the MC-21 will be an even better one. There is no doubt they have had a lot of issues with lack of Spares and the Engine wearing out too fast due to some combustion issue. But these problems are solvable. Until now the SSJ's Safety has not been really questioned. Unfortunately this Crash has raised has some serious issues;

- why did the FBW fail, even if it was hit by Lightning the Aircraft's electronic equipment is supposed to be able to survive lightning strikes
- why was there no effective back up to the radio failing
- should the MLG rupture the fuel tank during a hard landing (it may be that it is impossible to design an aircraft where the fuel tank is not ruptured during such a hard landing but the issue needs to be considered)

To me the prudent approach would be to ground the Aircraft, check what, if any, critical systems need to be rectified, fix it and then move on. If they go the way Boeing went the hole may get Deeper.

I also wonder how badly the lack of spare parts affects the safety and reliability of the Aircraft. Imagine you are an Engineer and it is your job to keep the Fleet Maintained and Available. But there is a constant lack of spares. So you have these choices;

1. Ground the Aircraft one by one until there is hardly any flying (this is happening at Interjet and probably to a lesser extent at Aeroflot). Safest approach but unhelpful to Management who need to fly their Passengers
2. Cannabalise some Aircraft for Parts to keep as many as possible of the others in service. This has happened with Interjet and Aeroflot. Also happens with other Companies, eg Air India and the 787. Not a great solution for obvious reasons
3. Use non genuine Parts. Pretty sure this has been identified as an issue in Russia before in other investigations/audits but not necessarily with the SSJ
4. Sign the Aircraft off as being safe to fly, even though some Parts really need replacement, and hope it holds up ok until the Spares arrive

In other words the Maintenance Staff are between a Rock and a Hard place if there is a shortage of spares. Anybody Manufacturing Aircraft needs to put a lot of time, thought and money into creating an adequate Spares Pool and it is apparent that not doing this has affected the SSJ program badly. And possibly contributed to this crash.

garpd · Tue May 07, 2019 8:18 am

The most tragic thing about this incident is that 41 people have lost their lives because the people up front blocked their way out because they were retrieving their hand luggage. It's now reported than someone in Row 10 held most of them up and no one rearward of row 12 made it.
In one of the videos you can see a distinct, gut wrenching, delay in the evacuation. About a dozen passengers hurtle out of the forward exits as soon as they are open, as you'd expect, then there is a significant pause before someone emerges with their baggage. Then only a handful more come out behind them. This person needs to be identified and arrested pronto. His actions have likely killed 41 people!

I don't care for the "muscle memory" excuse.
This is pure ignorance and selfishness. Plain and simple. Cause a death anywhere else due to ignorant actions and you get charged with manslaughter or involuntary manslaughter. I see no reason not to charge the moron(s) with their baggage in hand in this incident with the same.

Back to the incident itself: It will be interesting to find out why the plane bounced so hard on landing. Was it a systems thing, or did the pilots botch it? We shall hopefully see. the plane was most definitely NOT on fire before the final hard impact on landing.

I've seen some comments about the lack of over wing emergency exits when compared to the A318, etc. I doubt very much additional exits would have helped here. The flames were licking over the wings, you would not have been able to use over wing exits. Leaving just the forward two exits. So I think this is a non starter. Again, the video shows a rapid evacuation until there is a significant gap before numbnuts appears with their luggage.

yonahleung · Tue May 07, 2019 8:37 am

In law there are offences that carries "strict liability", that is you do not need to possess a certain state of mind before you are guilty of the offence. This is a matter of life and death. As a lawyer I do not see how you can escape without any liability if you did block the aisle or exit and blocked others from escaping in such a time critical situation. You know full well that people would die because of your retrieval of the bag (is anyone seriously suggesting otherwise with that giant fireball we see in the cabin video?). The stress excuse would only be a mitigating factor, people must be held responsible for this or more people will die because of stupid bags.

cc2314 · Tue May 07, 2019 8:46 am

Starlionblue wrote:
cc2314 wrote:
Muscle memory is a term used for the rebound effect a previously trained person gets when they return to the gym.
The brain is the issue here,any ingrained patterns of behavior in this situation should be ignored simply by the smell of smoke.

That's not how the brain works. Even under "normal" stressful situations, such as being on a sim check, we make mistakes that baffle us later. As mentioned above, the brain does peculiar things under stress, and the higher the level of stress, the higher the level of peculiar. Incidentally, this is one of the reasons why we train for abnormal situations. That way if we have an engine failure or something for real, we can fall back on a learned and conditioned set of responses in the initial phases of the situation, when stress is highest.

Brains are different.. Joe public travelling in the cabin cannot be compared to a pilots experience in his tanned environments. For sure yes humans react in ways we wish they didn't. When I board an aircraft and get to my row I stand in and over the seat to let those behind me pass.But so many are happy to stand there in the aisle and have a good think about what they need in their bag of treasure before they stand out of the way and consider everyone waiting behind them.
The trainned crew member has discipline. Passengers do not.

The argument for removing all hand luggage to me sounds very plausible.People might talk a little to each other and not spend so much time needlessly zoned out. Maybe we will take safety a lot more serious without those big head phones on.

SurlyBonds · Tue May 07, 2019 8:52 am

yonahleung wrote:
In law there are offences that carries "strict liability", that is you do not need to possess a certain state of mind before you are guilty of the offence.

Strict liability means liability without fault, not liability without the required mens rea. There are some strict liability crimes and civil torts ("working with dynamite" is the classic example), but they're relatively few, and they don't generally involve targeting people who have been in an accident.

yonahleung wrote:
As a lawyer I do not see how you can escape without any liability if you did block the aisle or exit and blocked others from escaping in such a time critical situation....The stress excuse would only be a mitigating factor, people must be held responsible for this or more people will die because of stupid bags.

If you're a lawyer, you should know what the word "conclusory" means. So if you're talking civil liability, cite your rule and arguments.

Armadillo1 · Tue May 07, 2019 8:52 am

google translate surviver interview

"Hello. I was on this flight, a couple of explanations:
- people with suitcases are business class, these bags were not large and did not bother anyone.
- there was no crowding. One woman fell in the aisle, she was quickly picked up and pushed out.
- after 12 rows, almost no one survived - if you notice there are no ladders behind. Not thrown out. And if there was something there was a thicken. Most died instantly.
- the mask of oxygen is not thrown out. On the right side may be 3-4 .
- The rescuers arrived quickly, but even if slowly, there was no one to save.
- given the general mess and the inconsistency of services, all the victims were surrounded by attention, support, food and even had vodka. True one bottle, but at least something.

Regarding the speed of burning aircraft, I myself did not expect a bit that it burns like a plastic cup. Instantly. The windows in my row melted before the plane stopped

And by survival - there is a moment of luck and lack of panic. One breath of black smoke and the person will not rise from the spot. And given that there is no visibility, then no one will save him, it is not to be seen. Breathing is not possible. There were no full-face masks on the plane, or they could not be found.

Interestingly, the landing gear almost completely extinguished the blows. Shaken, but not critical. Indeed, before the stop, almost everyone sat on their places. Well, at least those I saw from my line.

Someone wrote that maybe the people were not wearing the belt and were cut off by the blow - there was no such blow. Everything was tolerated. Yes, and I do not think that the belts in the plane do not allow me to beat my head against the seat mat.

I left the last one after me from the back rows there were no people.

I can not exactly answer why after almost 12 all almost died, I can guess. The first option, people rushed to the nearest exit, but for them it is the back ladder. And the second option is that they burned from the flame that emanated from the wing. Those who were in the front rows and did not get out - carbon monoxide. Twice inhale and you dead.

Regarding whether the flight attendants managed:

I did not hear, after the first strike, the women began to scream on the ultrasound. And the general sound background all blocked.
There is nothing to explain, op stood, shouted everything. In such an environment, mixed with the screech of the aircraft can not make out anything. Who said what, what commands and whether they were.

Once again, there was no rush. The passage was blocked by a woman, she was immediately picked up and left. Nobody pushed me in the back. Nobody ran over me. The last part of the way I crawled out - there was nothing to breathe. The road was free.

About lightning:

Oh, I forgot. Lightning struck the plane, thrust fell (the pilot may have muffled it), ventilation was not working. The landing approach was one. Loop on the radar - track of call. After the jump, the left side of the wing crumbled — a fire started. Perhaps the other was the same, I did not look. Feels like speed.

I sat on the wing, left side. The impact was definitely - I was staring at the clouds, just flew into the cloud
Lightning was visible, I did not hear the sound. The outbreak on the right wing - creeping like a discharge and all
After a lightning strike when they got out of the cloud, the flight attendant on the speakerphone announced that the pilot had decided to return due to a technical need / malfunction / technical reason. I do not remember exactly.
There were no other announcements after this

About a man from the 18th row who survived:
The man who survived - rushed to the exit after the first jump. It saved him.

As to whether it was still possible to save people (by the waiting room there is a view of the space between the cabin and the business class):
It was not possible without equipment. I was on a plane to the last, who can be pulled out. Next, the partition of the dressing room - fire hell

I have a fever only on the top, at first I was squatting, when I realized that I was losing consciousness, I crawled. No burns.
Once again - visibility at the level of my head by the time when I got out of my seat was no longer there. Black smoke. In the sit-down was still white.

I have not seen other people.
I do not know how many were there, guides.

... I got out of the business class in the dressing room. I lost my wife from sight, sat down at the exit, with my back to the cabin, the ladder was on my right. Nearby was the conductor girl, man and me. We began to pull people out of the embrasure with smoke. Three persons. Two meters and one train Then from the cabin already flared.

I asked for a full face mask, the young man rushed to some of the drawers and said no. Took a flashlight shone in the passage - there ass. Conductor and I jumped on the right ladder in the direction of travel. It seemed to me that the young man had gone to another ladder. But it is not exactly".

"dressing room" - google translate for free area between businnes and cockpit, how to name it correctly?

xmp125a · Tue May 07, 2019 9:04 am

thaiflyer wrote:
You can't punish the millions of people for the few stupid ones.
I only travel with hand luggage for my work and as i have to many valuables in my hand carry, checking in is not a option.

Usually the problem arises because people put valuable AND bulky stuff in the same bag, and the cabin luggage problem arises from that. Solution is simple: put valuables in small carry-on bag which you don't even put in overhead bin, but under the seat, and check the bulky, heavy but not valuable stuff.

Starlionblue · Tue May 07, 2019 9:16 am

Armadillo1 wrote:
google translate surviver interview
"Hello. I was on this flight, a couple of explanations:
- people with suitcases are business class, these bags were not large and did not bother anyone.
- there was no crowding. One woman fell in the aisle, she was quickly picked up and pushed out.
- after 12 rows, almost no one survived - if you notice there are no ladders behind. Not thrown out. And if there was something there was a thicken. Most died instantly.
- the mask of oxygen is not thrown out. On the right side may be 3-4 .
- The rescuers arrived quickly, but even if slowly, there was no one to save.
- given the general mess and the inconsistency of services, all the victims were surrounded by attention, support, food and even had vodka. True one bottle, but at least something.

Regarding the speed of burning aircraft, I myself did not expect a bit that it burns like a plastic cup. Instantly. The windows in my row melted before the plane stopped

And by survival - there is a moment of luck and lack of panic. One breath of black smoke and the person will not rise from the spot. And given that there is no visibility, then no one will save him, it is not to be seen. Breathing is not possible. There were no full-face masks on the plane, or they could not be found.

Interestingly, the landing gear almost completely extinguished the blows. Shaken, but not critical. Indeed, before the stop, almost everyone sat on their places. Well, at least those I saw from my line.

Someone wrote that maybe the people were not wearing the belt and were cut off by the blow - there was no such blow. Everything was tolerated. Yes, and I do not think that the belts in the plane do not allow me to beat my head against the seat mat.

I left the last one after me from the back rows there were no people.

I can not exactly answer why after almost 12 all almost died, I can guess. The first option, people rushed to the nearest exit, but for them it is the back ladder. And the second option is that they burned from the flame that emanated from the wing. Those who were in the front rows and did not get out - carbon monoxide. Twice inhale and you dead.

Regarding whether the flight attendants managed:

I did not hear, after the first strike, the women began to scream on the ultrasound. And the general sound background all blocked.
There is nothing to explain, op stood, shouted everything. In such an environment, mixed with the screech of the aircraft can not make out anything. Who said what, what commands and whether they were.

Once again, there was no rush. The passage was blocked by a woman, she was immediately picked up and left. Nobody pushed me in the back. Nobody ran over me. The last part of the way I crawled out - there was nothing to breathe. The road was free.

About lightning:

Oh, I forgot. Lightning struck the plane, thrust fell (the pilot may have muffled it), ventilation was not working. The landing approach was one. Loop on the radar - track of call. After the jump, the left side of the wing crumbled — a fire started. Perhaps the other was the same, I did not look. Feels like speed.

I sat on the wing, left side. The impact was definitely - I was staring at the clouds, just flew into the cloud
Lightning was visible, I did not hear the sound. The outbreak on the right wing - creeping like a discharge and all
After a lightning strike when they got out of the cloud, the flight attendant on the speakerphone announced that the pilot had decided to return due to a technical need / malfunction / technical reason. I do not remember exactly.
There were no other announcements after this

About a man from the 18th row who survived:
The man who survived - rushed to the exit after the first jump. It saved him.

As to whether it was still possible to save people (by the waiting room there is a view of the space between the cabin and the business class):
It was not possible without equipment. I was on a plane to the last, who can be pulled out. Next, the partition of the dressing room - fire hell

I have a fever only on the top, at first I was squatting, when I realized that I was losing consciousness, I crawled. No burns.
Once again - visibility at the level of my head by the time when I got out of my seat was no longer there. Black smoke. In the sit-down was still white.

I have not seen other people.
I do not know how many were there, guides.

... I got out of the business class in the dressing room. I lost my wife from sight, sat down at the exit, with my back to the cabin, the ladder was on my right. Nearby was the conductor girl, man and me. We began to pull people out of the embrasure with smoke. Three persons. Two meters and one train Then from the cabin already flared.

I asked for a full face mask, the young man rushed to some of the drawers and said no. Took a flashlight shone in the passage - there ass. Conductor and I jumped on the right ladder in the direction of travel. It seemed to me that the young man had gone to another ladder. But it is not exactly".

"dressing room" - google translate for free area between businnes and cockpit, how to name it correctly?

That would normally be the galley. I guess "entranceway" or the somewhat archaic "vestibule" if there is no front galley.

Full face masks, or more accurately smoke hoods, are in the equipment of airliners. Just not that many. In the cockpit for the pilots and a few for the cabin crew in case they need to re-enter a smoke filled environment, for example to extinguish a lavatory fire.

xmp125a · Tue May 07, 2019 9:19 am

MD80Ttail wrote:
The real way to save lives is to decrease regulations, make starting airlines less expensive, get back to the post deregulation days where there were more airlines and lower fares. More people would fly. Less drive. Lives would be saved at a greater rate that any locking bin or redesigning MCAS would ever save.

Well, the regulations that would enforce ban on oversized luggage in the cabin would just revert the situation back to some reasonable point in time, where people were not allowed to bring 15 kg hard case bag and put in overhead locker. And this does not seem like overkill, because:

1. Airplane has cargo hold, where all luggage should be
2. Airplane cabin is NOT well equipped for large amounts of luggage, even there is no evacuation.
3. I remember flying in 90s. Boardings were so much faster than today, you found your seat, you put your small cabin bag in the overhead bin and sat down. Now I routinely see people WHEELING their bags through the aisle, slowing everyone down and then at their seat they are often unable to put the bag to the overhead bin, often crew members need to help.
4. Stewards and stewardesses are not there to handle luggage, there are airport workers who are employed for that purpose.

Therefore, prevalence of large luggage pieces in the passenger cabin is one of the worst aspects of deregulation and I think, regardless of evacuation issues, the size of cabin luggage should go down to what it was before.

Don't want to pay for checked bag? Well, tough luck, you are not allowed to bring it to the cabin - don't wanna pay for the luggage, don't have the luggage. Simple.

AvroLanc · Tue May 07, 2019 9:34 am

So terrible words cannot be found. Can we move the discussion on to something more aviation focused than human psychology. We here on ANet will never understand why people do what they do. People do things in their every day we cant explain, why do we feel that under immensely stressful conditions people would act any different.
Does anyone know what the burn times are of CFRP vs conventional materials. Both in regards to heat transfer and failure?

Amiga500 · Tue May 07, 2019 9:34 am

RIP to those that died.

Same as for the 737; if there is even a suspicion of a design flaw that brought this scenario about - the aircraft should be grounded. No ifs, no buts.

---------------------------------

I would also suspect that ~~people~~idiots going for bags has likely resulted in at least one person not getting out in time. I don't know what folks are on about muscle memory for - you train to avoid freezing or to avoid doing the instinctual thing. When there is a big fire in the back instinct is to get away by heading out the front ASAP.

But people are now so wrapped up in possessions that they couldn't leave without their precious X, Y or Z and places these above the lives of others.

bennett123 · Tue May 07, 2019 9:40 am

Personally, anything essential/valuable is in my pocket or under the seat in front.

mxaxai · Tue May 07, 2019 9:43 am

Armadillo1 wrote:
... I got out of the business class in the dressing room. I lost my wife from sight, sat down at the exit, with my back to the cabin, the ladder was on my right. Nearby was the conductor girl, man and me. We began to pull people out of the embrasure with smoke. Three persons. Two meters and one train Then from the cabin already flared.

I asked for a full face mask, the young man rushed to some of the drawers and said no. Took a flashlight shone in the passage - there ass. Conductor and I jumped on the right ladder in the direction of travel. It seemed to me that the young man had gone to another ladder. But it is not exactly".

[/quote]
This sounds like this particular survivor was among the last to leave the plane ... the translation is not easy to understand here. I guess the following happened:
- he reaches the R1 door by crawling beneath the smoke and sits down (due to exhaustion?)
- There's a male and a female FA with him at the door
- they pull 3 people lying (crawling? sitting?) in the aisle from beneath the smoke (2 men and one woman?) to the exit, until the fire reaches the forward cabin
- a visual check of the aisle, with a flashlight, reveals no more people in the vicinity
- he and the 2 FA's exit last

Armadillo1 · Tue May 07, 2019 9:59 am

yes.
l1 door (back to cockpit, door on right). but leave by r1?
yes, they pull 2 man 1 woman, i cant edit post anymore

male FA died after.

ikarlson · Tue May 07, 2019 10:01 am

eielef wrote:
Is there any other website, Russian or not, that has the recordings of the ATC that day? There should be somewhere.

Not available, it was on emergency frequency too, so 121.5, so no one captured it, now all depends if that data was saved in black boxes, which are badly damaged

Only chance was if http://www.radioscanner.ru/ captured it, but that web-site runs by radio enthusiasts, and no one knew that situation is that serious

ikarlson · Tue May 07, 2019 10:05 am

and looks like all blame will be on the captain that didn't burn fuel and made mistake on landing

New article from Russian newspaper about analysis of landing, again will need google translate for it

https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/3962418#id1743216

xmp125a · Tue May 07, 2019 10:30 am

ikarlson wrote:
and looks like all blame will be on the captain that didn't burn fuel and made mistake on landing

New article from Russian newspaper about analysis of landing, again will need google translate for it

https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/3962418#id1743216

Well, pilot will have to explain his actions well.Not necesary scapegoating.

1) The fuel was not an issue, as small aircraft are able to land without releasing fuel. For this particular aircraft model, MTOW is 46 tonnes, and MLW is 41 tonnes. Apparently they took off at 42 tonnes, so aircraft was not too heavy for normal landing (aircraft are able to land above MLW, just they have to be inspected and repaired if this is done. In any case, 1 ton over MLW cannot result in such fireball in any properly designed aircraft.

2) Pilots should be able to fly and land even when there is electronics failure, in that case airplane goes in direct law - it is more difficult to fly, but pilots should be trained for this as well. It is just not that comfy as in normal law. The fact that they were maneuvering the plane before, leads to the conclusion that despite electronics failure, plane was flyable.

3) There COULD be goood reasons why to force such crazy landing (fire onboard is definitely one of such reasons), but pilot actually described landing as normal, which is very very strange.

So, I think it is on pilots to explain why they made choices they did, because yet we don't see reasons why it should land in such hard way.

Armadillo1 · Tue May 07, 2019 10:32 am

mask with carbon monoxide protection: price about 40 euro in Moscow
indeed, why it not used on planes (in case fire in midair, not in this one)

speedbird52 · Tue May 07, 2019 10:36 am

yonahleung wrote:
In law there are offences that carries "strict liability", that is you do not need to possess a certain state of mind before you are guilty of the offence. This is a matter of life and death. As a lawyer I do not see how you can escape without any liability if you did block the aisle or exit and blocked others from escaping in such a time critical situation. You know full well that people would die because of your retrieval of the bag (is anyone seriously suggesting otherwise with that giant fireball we see in the cabin video?). The stress excuse would only be a mitigating factor, people must be held responsible for this or more people will die because of stupid bags.

I don't get the muscle memory argument or irrational behavior argument. Irrational behavior is when passengers ignore the overwing exit right next to them in order to leave the airplane from the door they entered. That is an example of basic human nature. In the Emirates crash, which had the potential to be just as fatal, people were very calmly requesting other passengers to move so that they could retrieve their belongings. Opening an overhead locker and retrieving a bag is a very conscious and deliberate action. It also seems to go against all survival instincts we supposedly have.

ikarlson · Tue May 07, 2019 10:36 am

Armadillo1 wrote:
mask with carbon monoxide protection: price about 40 euro in Moscow
indeed, why it not used on planes (in case fire in midair, not in this one)

As I see you are also on aviaforum.ru masks would get stolen, and Aeroflot won't pay it

Aesma · Tue May 07, 2019 10:38 am

There is no doubt the landing was botched, the reason we don't know yet, but dumping/burning fuel would not have been the priority if your electronics/instruments are acting up, landing with full tanks should be fine for any airliner, let alone a small one at a big airport, that should be no problem at all.

From the survivors' description, keeping oneself from breathing was key, he says he crawled down were it was better, good reflex.

Aesma · Tue May 07, 2019 10:42 am

Also I see no reason for a grounding at this stage, doing it without any clue there is something wrong with the aircraft would be an overreaction. Of course such overreaction could definitely happen, and has happened before in Russia.

tu204 · Tue May 07, 2019 10:59 am

Starlionblue wrote:
Phosphorus wrote:
mtzguerrero wrote:

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.)

Good point.
I can only think of killing one of the Flight Computers or Air Data Reference Units. But that would get you in a heap of trouble if you do it intentionally to practice flying Direct Law ..with passengers onboard.

Armadillo1 · Tue May 07, 2019 12:12 pm

direct law can return to normal on ground only

AVB · Tue May 07, 2019 12:19 pm

With the wings and engines basically intact, why did only the rear fuselage burn? There’s no fuel in the rear fuselage so what caught alight? Was there a fire already ragging in the cargo hold prior to landing?

mtzguerrero · Tue May 07, 2019 12:41 pm

xmp125a wrote:
Did they miss that the plane went into direct law due to widespread sensor failure and relied on the protections that were no longer available for smooth landing? That would be one massive pilot error. Did perhaps they not train for flying under a direct law?? (AFAIK for Airbus planes, this is trained in the simulator as well, what about SuperJet?).

Great question. That's what I asked some posts ago, but this topic is completely deviated from technical issues and flying skills to carry-on baggage.

mtzguerrero wrote:
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?.

WIederling · Tue May 07, 2019 12:42 pm

Pentaprism wrote:
It seems to me the Russian may be making the same mistake that Boeing and the FAA made after the Max Crash in Indonesia. Boeing came out with a lot of spin claiming everything will be fine which the FAA more or less went along with when clearly it wasn't and the Aircraft should have been grounded.

I have difficulty seeing your parallel.
( Or have you seen Boeing style spin spouted by any involved party?)

Armadillo1 · Tue May 07, 2019 12:43 pm

wind and engine 2 fanned fire with fuel from more damaged right wing, then firefighters tryed to keep fire out from wing and front fuselage.

SheikhDjibouti · Tue May 07, 2019 1:15 pm

Regarding locking overhead luggage bins;

Starlionblue wrote:
My hypothesis is that a few people trying to force the bin open, then giving up, will waste less time than the same people opening their respective bins, dragging their bags out, and lugging them outside. But that's only a hypothesis.

Agreed

This may be the first crash in which it was so clearly apparent to the casual observer. The combination of horrific fire, many people surviving while others didn't, dramatic footage and reasonably clear indications that people died because they could not evacuate in time may sway public opinion. This in turn might make legislators put pressure on regulators.

Fingers crossed :thumbsup:

twinotter wrote:
Ban carry on luggage. Problem solved.

Moose135 wrote:
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?

What are you saying? You appear to have a very low opinion of airport baggage handlers.
What you actually need is a memory stick with your business presentation (you should have one as a back-up anyway); laptops can be easily replaced, paid for by the airline insurance.

Or the expensive camera gear?

Insurance (again)! :roll:

Or the prescription medicine I need to stay alive?

If you need it so urgently, it will be on your person 24/7. If you only need it infrequently, you find a medical facility and charge it to the airline.

Perhaps the FA announcement on each flight should include a reminder to everyone that in the event of an emergency evacuation, all losses of valuables will be covered by standard airline insurance, plus 50% for your inconvenience. For me, that would mean an nice upgrade from my tired & battered 6 year old Digital camera, to a nice new state of the art SLR. As long as my pictures are backed up on a memory stick, the camera itself can burn with rest of the aircraft!

I don't get why people see their possessions are so important. They come, they go, and ten years from now 50% of what I own today will just be landfill. It's just $$$

FlyingJhawk · Tue May 07, 2019 1:15 pm

bennett123 wrote:
Personally, anything essential/valuable is in my pocket or under the seat in front.

Dittto. I rarely if ever put my work bag in the overhead bin. I love to sit here and type out that I do it solely because i want to leave room in the overhead space for other passengers and that having my work bag at my feet is more convenient....but I'd be lying. It does cross my mind that in an emergency evacuation situation, if there is time and it is feasible I am taking the sucker with me out the door and on the slide.

I am guessing others on this forum would do the same.

richierich · Tue May 07, 2019 1:40 pm

garpd wrote:
In one of the videos you can see a distinct, gut wrenching, delay in the evacuation. About a dozen passengers hurtle out of the forward exits as soon as they are open, as you'd expect, then there is a significant pause before someone emerges with their baggage. Then only a handful more come out behind them. This person needs to be identified and arrested pronto. His actions have likely killed 41 people!

I agree with most of what you wrote except for this part. While I do understand your sentiment, you are assigning blame without any sort of knowledge of what really happened. Some of the 41 people were likely already dead or close to it by the time the emergency doors opened, and we don't know that the man described in the local papers as "fat man with bag" really stood in the aisle getting his bag down from the overhead. Is it possible? Yes. But a gap in people sliding out of the front doors could be for any number of reasons.

BerenErchamion · Tue May 07, 2019 1:44 pm

garpd wrote:
SurlyBonds wrote:
garpd wrote:
I don't care for the "muscle memory" excuse.This is pure ignorance and selfishness. Plain and simple.

Could you share for us your credentials in the field of neuroscience, please?

Why? I don't need to justify an opinion to you or anyone.

You do if you want your opinion to be treated as something to be taken seriously rather than just the willfully-ignorant rantings and assumptions of someone who doesn't have the slightest clue what they're talking about.

SamH123 · Tue May 07, 2019 2:53 pm

The bounced landing reminds me of FedEx Express Flight 80 at Narita airport, could distracted pilots have made similar errors to the Fedex pilots?

eielef · Tue May 07, 2019 3:12 pm

garpd wrote:
In one of the videos you can see a distinct, gut wrenching, delay in the evacuation. About a dozen passengers hurtle out of the forward exits as soon as they are open, as you'd expect, then there is a significant pause before someone emerges with their baggage. Then only a handful more come out behind them. This person needs to be identified and arrested pronto. His actions have likely killed 41 people!

The man with the bag, the passenger of Seat 10C has a name, Dmitry Khlebushkin, and he went back to the airport immediately after the crash to ask for a compensation for his lost flight, and also to file a complain to the Aeroflot employees on the airport. He is possibly the most hated man of all Russia today..

Maybe not all 41 lives would have been saved, but say two more, one more. How much is it worth a human life than "all the valuables" people put in their hand luggage, including professional photo cameras, computers with important information, or original pulitzers?

FluidFlow · Tue May 07, 2019 3:16 pm

Regarding the carry-on rules. The main opponents will be the airlines itself and only for insurance reasons. Old laptop? check it in without anything else in the case. Chances are high it gets some damage especially if its a bulk loaded aircraft.

Insurance fraud is one of the most commited crime with huge financial consequences for all parties involved.

Also power units in checked luggage can pose serious threats. There are huge consequences for safety and this will impact either ticket price or profit.

Besides this a dead person is priced at around 2mio (insurance, western world). if the additional insurance and other costs for belongings damaged due to checking it in is higher than the odd payout for dead people it will not be accepted well by airlines.

WorldFlier · Tue May 07, 2019 3:17 pm

Aesma wrote:
There is no doubt the landing was botched, the reason we don't know yet, but dumping/burning fuel would not have been the priority if your electronics/instruments are acting up, landing with full tanks should be fine for any airliner, let alone a small one at a big airport, that should be no problem at all.

From the survivors' description, keeping oneself from breathing was key, he says he crawled down were it was better, good reflex.

If you see a fire during landing and you have enough time, would using a water bottle or pissing on your shirt (helps to be a man) and keeping that on your face help?

/Asking for future reference...

rikkus67 · Tue May 07, 2019 3:27 pm

From the Ukraine News Agency, comes this article:

"...."According to preliminary data, from a survey of eyewitnesses it follows that when the plane hit the ground and caught fire, some passengers began to get their belongings off the shelves in panic. This made it difficult for people to evacuate from the back rows of the plane and they died in the fire," the agency's source said. ..."

https://en.interfax.com.ua/news/general/585999.html

B777LRF · Tue May 07, 2019 3:29 pm

xmp125a wrote:
mtzguerrero wrote:
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.

I am not a pilot, but AFAIK Airbus pilots are trained to fly in all (three) laws and should be able to control plane in all cases. What you are describing would be indeed very dangerous.

Not only dangerous, but more importantly factually incorrect. Airbus FBW logic switches to direct law at around 50ft on the approach to landing. Thus every single FBW Airbus which has ever landed, did so in direct- (no protections) rather than normal (full envelope protection) law.

F9Animal · Tue May 07, 2019 3:46 pm

Starlionblue wrote:
cc2314 wrote:
Muscle memory is a term used for the rebound effect a previously trained person gets when they return to the gym.
The brain is the issue here,any ingrained patterns of behavior in this situation should be ignored simply by the smell of smoke.

That's not how the brain works. Even under "normal" stressful situations, such as being on a sim check, we make mistakes that baffle us later. As mentioned above, the brain does peculiar things under stress, and the higher the level of stress, the higher the level of peculiar. Incidentally, this is one of the reasons why we train for abnormal situations. That way if we have an engine failure or something for real, we can fall back on a learned and conditioned set of responses in the initial phases of the situation, when stress is highest.

Interesting! I am not a pilot, but I am a professional driver. I drove buses for several years. One day I pulled up to a stop and a teenager pulled out a gun, pointed it at me, and pulled the trigger several times. Instant reaction was to slam down the gas pedal and get the eff out of there! But!!! When I did that, the bus didn't move. I kept slamming down the gas pedal like 3 times and the bus wouldnt move. I literally forgot how to drive a freaking bus for a minute. The back doors were still open, so the interlock was on. I shut the back door after over a minute of this. Then I slammed down the gas pedal again, and the bus wouldnt move! Eventually I released the emergency brake and the bus finally moved. We played back the recording the next day, and I was in total shock at how stupid I was. During this, I made several stupid comments. Comments that the police questioned! Like, why did you say that? I honestly couldn't remember even saying a word!

We all react different in emergencies.

hongkongflyer · Tue May 07, 2019 3:53 pm

I think it is time to re-think the evacuation requirements too.
As new models tend to become longer and longer (compared to their previous models),
new criterias should be added.
For example rather then only using the exits on one side, requirements such as only those exits at the front/ rear of the plane (both sides) should be added.

Clearly in this case, half of the exits were useful, but all were located at the front of the cabin. Times for people sitting at the back to reach “useable” exits (in this case those at the front) should be taken into account, although I agree that the requirements may be longer then 90 seconds.

So all new models should pass two tests regarding the evucation: 1) only using one side 2) only using exits at the front / rear of the plane

DALMD80 · Tue May 07, 2019 3:56 pm

hongkongflyer wrote:
I think it is time to re-think the evacuation requirements too.
As new models tend to become longer and longer (compared to their previous models),
new criterias should be added.
For example rather then only using the exits on one side, requirements such as only those exits at the front/ rear of the plane (both sides) should be added.

Clearly in this case, half of the exits were useful, but all were located at the front of the cabin. Times for people sitting at the back to reach “useable” exits (in this case those at the front) should be taken into account, although I agree that the requirements may be longer then 90 seconds.

So all new models should pass two tests regarding the evucation: 1) only using one side 2) only using exits at the front / rear of the plane

In addition to using ALL exits. Another issue that ABSOLUTELY MUST BE ADDRESSED: passengers who grab their luggage and put material things before themselves and others.

transswede · Tue May 07, 2019 4:06 pm

DALMD80 wrote:
hongkongflyer wrote:
I think it is time to re-think the evacuation requirements too.
As new models tend to become longer and longer (compared to their previous models),
new criterias should be added.
For example rather then only using the exits on one side, requirements such as only those exits at the front/ rear of the plane (both sides) should be added.

Clearly in this case, half of the exits were useful, but all were located at the front of the cabin. Times for people sitting at the back to reach “useable” exits (in this case those at the front) should be taken into account, although I agree that the requirements may be longer then 90 seconds.

So all new models should pass two tests regarding the evucation: 1) only using one side 2) only using exits at the front / rear of the plane

In addition to using ALL exits. Another issue that ABSOLUTELY MUST BE ADDRESSED: passengers who grab their luggage and put material things before themselves and others.

Hard to stop that, BUT it could be helped by airlines eliminating the fees for checking luggage... The current policies encourage people to take EVERYTHING as a carry-on, which just adds temptation to grab things as you are exiting the plane. This would also make boarding and unboarding faster. A win-win, it would seem.

rikkus67 · Tue May 07, 2019 4:25 pm

https://twitter.com/JacdecNew/status/11 ... 4006147072 ...also, if not already posted, here is the landing sequence, showing the two bounces, and subsequent MLG failure.

hivue · Tue May 07, 2019 4:43 pm

dennypayne wrote:
I'm also quite suspicious of the pilot's initial statement that he didn't notice anything wrong with the landing, when the video clearly shows the horrific bounce.

And after the bounce a failure to abort a landing attempt that long ago had gone pear shaped. Here is a fascinating first hand account of a pilot struck by lightning --

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OY7LxyjHL8o

An F-18 and not a transport category airplane and maybe not the same crew protection from lightning as is found on the SSJ, but the strike had serious physiological effects on one of the pilots. Lighning can do weird things.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net