Page 17 of 17

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

Posted: Fri Jun 14, 2019 1:00 pm
by Armadillo1
preliminary report
https://mak-iac.org/rassledovaniya/rrj- ... 9//#117091

mirror
https://aviaforum.ru/threads/katastrofa ... st-2436206


in short:
captain could not keep plane in smooth flight before landing (+-200ft oscillation, 40grad banking, etc)
just before landing he performed input to max joystick angles up and down with some waiting at max positions.

first touch was about angle=0 on all 3 landing gear and up rotation (angle speed)
week elements of landing gear were cut off on 2nd touch, and gears was broken on 3nd touch


engines reverse was engaged on 2nd touch but no throtle because of bouncing
after this engines control was lost due damage and engines not responding on input

extinguishers balloons still full (not emptied)

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

Posted: Fri Jun 14, 2019 1:42 pm
by T4thH
Armadillo1 wrote:
preliminary report
https://mak-iac.org/rassledovaniya/rrj- ... 9//#117091

mirror
https://aviaforum.ru/threads/katastrofa ... st-2436206


in short:
captain could not keep plane in smooth flight before landing (+-200ft oscillation, 40grad banking, etc)
just before landing he performed input to max joystick angles up and down with some waiting at max positions.

first touch was about angle=0 on all 3 landing gear and up rotation (angle speed)
week elements of landing gear were cut off on 2nd touch, and gears was broken on 3nd touch


engines reverse was engaged on 2nd touch but no throtle because of bouncing
after this engines control was lost due damage and engines not responding on input

extinguishers balloons still full (not emptied)


captain could not keep plane in smooth flight before landing (+-200ft oscillation, 40grad banking, etc)

This sounds like, something really bad was going on, the stearing/controls of the bird heavily damaged and the bird nearly doomed e.g.
Seems more, it is a miracle, that the jet has reached and crashed on the runway and has not ended up already several km prior on a field.

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

Posted: Fri Jun 14, 2019 5:00 pm
by mtzguerrero
T4thH wrote:
Armadillo1 wrote:
preliminary report
https://mak-iac.org/rassledovaniya/rrj- ... 9//#117091

mirror
https://aviaforum.ru/threads/katastrofa ... st-2436206


in short:
captain could not keep plane in smooth flight before landing (+-200ft oscillation, 40grad banking, etc)
just before landing he performed input to max joystick angles up and down with some waiting at max positions.

first touch was about angle=0 on all 3 landing gear and up rotation (angle speed)
week elements of landing gear were cut off on 2nd touch, and gears was broken on 3nd touch


engines reverse was engaged on 2nd touch but no throtle because of bouncing
after this engines control was lost due damage and engines not responding on input

extinguishers balloons still full (not emptied)


captain could not keep plane in smooth flight before landing (+-200ft oscillation, 40grad banking, etc)

This sounds like, something really bad was going on, the stearing/controls of the bird heavily damaged and the bird nearly doomed e.g.
Seems more, it is a miracle, that the jet has reached and crashed on the runway and has not ended up already several km prior on a field.


Could be something really bad going on or, as mentioned, lack of practice about how controls react in direct law, being used to FBW computers filtering and smoothing inputs.

Some people here has said that Russia is known for covering their autorities' and companies' responsability in a number of matters. If that is true, they will try to blame the pilots and the lightning for what happened.

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

Posted: Fri Jun 14, 2019 7:37 pm
by T4thH
mtzguerrero wrote:
T4thH wrote:
Armadillo1 wrote:
preliminary report
https://mak-iac.org/rassledovaniya/rrj- ... 9//#117091

mirror
https://aviaforum.ru/threads/katastrofa ... st-2436206


in short:
captain could not keep plane in smooth flight before landing (+-200ft oscillation, 40grad banking, etc)
just before landing he performed input to max joystick angles up and down with some waiting at max positions.

first touch was about angle=0 on all 3 landing gear and up rotation (angle speed)
week elements of landing gear were cut off on 2nd touch, and gears was broken on 3nd touch


engines reverse was engaged on 2nd touch but no throtle because of bouncing
after this engines control was lost due damage and engines not responding on input

extinguishers balloons still full (not emptied)


captain could not keep plane in smooth flight before landing (+-200ft oscillation, 40grad banking, etc)

This sounds like, something really bad was going on, the stearing/controls of the bird heavily damaged and the bird nearly doomed e.g.
Seems more, it is a miracle, that the jet has reached and crashed on the runway and has not ended up already several km prior on a field.


Could be something really bad going on or, as mentioned, lack of practice about how controls react in direct law, being used to FBW computers filtering and smoothing inputs.

Some people here has said that Russia is known for covering their autorities' and companies' responsability in a number of matters. If that is true, they will try to blame the pilots and the lightning for what happened.


Rearding this point:
lack of practice about how controls react in direct law,

Oscillation by more than 200 feet; this can be pilot fault. 40grad banking alone; possibly also pilot fault....but a combination of both, this is unlikely, than something else is going on. This does not exclude, pilots have made also errors, but this will be only part of the accident.

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

Posted: Fri Jun 14, 2019 9:13 pm
by YYZYYT
This really begs the question: why did the pilot not go around, as the approach was clearly not stable? In my mind this goes beyond the question of "did they have enough practice in direct law" but rather speaks to basic airmanship (again, I'm not a pilot)

Though, that begs the next question, is there any indication in the initial report that the pilots were concerned with the airworthiness of the aircraft (which might justify a decision to continue to land)?

Earlier discussions here seemed to point to a routine landing, until the oscillations/ I'd b interested in seeing if the contradicts that (there was no English version of the report linked).

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

Posted: Fri Jun 14, 2019 10:40 pm
by T4thH
YYZYYT wrote:
This really begs the question: why did the pilot not go around, as the approach was clearly not stable? In my mind this goes beyond the question of "did they have enough practice in direct law" but rather speaks to basic airmanship (again, I'm not a pilot)

Though, that begs the next question, is there any indication in the initial report that the pilots were concerned with the airworthiness of the aircraft (which might justify a decision to continue to land)?

Earlier discussions here seemed to point to a routine landing, until the oscillations/ I'd b interested in seeing if the contradicts that (there was no English version of the report linked).

Let us expect, the lightning strikes have half-killed the bird, many electronic systems were down and several others were even worse, they were corrupt. You have damages, which are far beyoind all operating procedures you have on board, to fix it. OK, than you need support from ground; some technicians have to help you. But your radio system is grilled. you can not call anyone, no one will support you. So you will not solve the issues any more, before you have to land. The bird is near uncontrollable, there are heavy oscillations and even more worse heavy banking. What comes next? An 180 grad roll? Is the jet any more airworth, with 200 ft oscillations and 40° banking? With the information you have at that moment, is it less or more dangerous to make a hard landing on the runway, (which ended as crash landing) or to make a go around,. Will you be able again, to reach the runway? Will you be able to slow down, that you will be able to avoid a hard landing?
I will not blame the pilots, till it is not proven, that they have had done the wrong decission.

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

Posted: Sat Jun 15, 2019 12:53 am
by N212R
YYZYYT wrote:
This really begs the question: why did the pilot not go around, as the approach was clearly not stable? In my mind this goes beyond the question of "did they have enough practice in direct law" but rather speaks to basic airmanship (again, I'm not a pilot)

Though, that begs the next question, is there any indication in the initial report that the pilots were concerned with the airworthiness of the aircraft (which might justify a decision to continue to land)?

Earlier discussions here seemed to point to a routine landing, until the oscillations/ I'd b interested in seeing if the contradicts that (there was no English version of the report linked).


We still don't know the precipitating factor(s) that started this chain of events. Seems pretty straight-forward, he did not go around because he needed to urgently get the aircraft on the ground. There was nothing routine about this flight from the moment that decision made itself manifest.

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

Posted: Sat Jun 15, 2019 6:39 pm
by UmKa39
...Mr. Manturov noted that the flight crew had two options: to continue the flight along a given route or to produce fuel for the subsequent landing, but the pilot decided to land the plane without developing fuel....

..."When the autopilot turned off, the system worked so well, gave the pilot an opportunity to continue to fly"...

https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/4002934?u ... #id1743216

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

Posted: Sat Jun 15, 2019 8:06 pm
by bennett123
UmKa39

Is there a translation issue here?.

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

Posted: Sun Jun 16, 2019 4:20 pm
by UmKa39
bennett123 wrote:
UmKa39

Is there a translation issue here?.


Perhaps because Google translate

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

Posted: Sun Jun 16, 2019 4:49 pm
by usxguy
Where does the report say the radios weren't working? The pilots were talking to ATC... it was ::: here ::: on this thread where it was speculated the radios were fried.

They didn't declare an emergency, just said they were coming back.

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

Posted: Mon Jun 17, 2019 1:05 pm
by YYZYYT
N212R wrote:
YYZYYT wrote:
This really begs the question: why did the pilot not go around, as the approach was clearly not stable? In my mind this goes beyond the question of "did they have enough practice in direct law" but rather speaks to basic airmanship (again, I'm not a pilot)

Though, that begs the next question, is there any indication in the initial report that the pilots were concerned with the airworthiness of the aircraft (which might justify a decision to continue to land)?

Earlier discussions here seemed to point to a routine landing, until the oscillations/ I'd b interested in seeing if the contradicts that (there was no English version of the report linked).


We still don't know the precipitating factor(s) that started this chain of events. Seems pretty straight-forward, he did not go around because he needed to urgently get the aircraft on the ground. There was nothing routine about this flight from the moment that decision made itself manifest.


Of course, that was my point.

We have heard 2 very different stories. One was that the electronics were badly affected by a lightning strike (or possible another cause), and the aircraft was barely controllable... in which case the pilots were had no choice but to land. The second version is that it was a decision to return to the airport but otherwise a routine landing. There is evidence pointing to option #2, for example the lack of a mayday call, and no passengers talking about an emergency landing (at least not that I recall). There's also the fact that option 1 seemed to come entirely from initial news reporting (when, as we know, unreliable information gets picked up and spread like wildfire).

Despite all of that, I don't think anyone can (and I certainly won't) know what led to this until the investigators do their job and analyze the FDR and CVR and all other evidence.* Heck, for all we know the answer is somewhere between 1 and 2, with no catastrophic failures but still some flight control issues (possibly undiscovered) which affected the pilots' ability to land normally.

*I would add that I hope that the authorities allow the investigators to do their job, and don't try to influence the results.

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

Posted: Tue Jul 09, 2019 6:41 am
by bennett123
I was reading Airliner World for June 2011 and found this quote;

‘It is reasonably easy to control and I was really impressed and greatly appreciated it’s cockpit layout’

It is from Eugene Voronin, chief of the Aeroflot SSJ100 Pilots Team.

He was apparently a Trainer and therefore going to be more experienced than the average.

His description of the handling sounds like than stellar.

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

Posted: Tue Jul 09, 2019 12:46 pm
by mtzguerrero
bennett123 wrote:
His description of the handling sounds like than stellar.


It's not probable that he was referring to control in Direct Law

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

Posted: Tue Jul 09, 2019 1:08 pm
by dennypayne
bennett123 wrote:
I was reading Airliner World for June 2011 and found this quote;

‘It is reasonably easy to control and I was really impressed and greatly appreciated it’s cockpit layout’

It is from Eugene Voronin, chief of the Aeroflot SSJ100 Pilots Team.

He was apparently a Trainer and therefore going to be more experienced than the average.

His description of the handling sounds like than stellar.


I think it's dangerous to make assumptions like that, considering he likely didn't say that in English, and the translation could have missed nuances of his description.

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

Posted: Tue Jul 09, 2019 8:26 pm
by bennett123
Would you take the same stance on all comments regarding this type.

The manufacturer and main operators are going to be primarily non English speaking.

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

Posted: Tue Jul 09, 2019 9:04 pm
by bennett123
As a pilot with a significant airline it seems reasonable to conclude that he has a reasonable standard of English.

If not, then you would expect someone from the airline who could speak English to check that Aeroflot were happy with the comments.

The manufacturers would also be interested in making sure that the comments were correct.

Would be interesting to know if anyone here is able to compare the Sukhoi with the A320 or B737.

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

Posted: Mon Aug 05, 2019 3:55 am
by mtzguerrero
Any news? This happened almost 3 months ago and still don't have information about why the plane's systems were made unoperative. Only the lightning strike thing, but without details.

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

Posted: Mon Aug 05, 2019 6:57 am
by Armadillo1
preliminary report issued 14 jun 2019.

lightning cause direct mode.
all after that by pilots.
with a number of untold issues for pilots training in direct mode.

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

Posted: Wed Oct 09, 2019 12:02 am
by mtzguerrero
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/aeroflot-superjet-captain-charged-over-fatal-landing-461241/

The captain had taken manual control of the Superjet after the lightning strike but the investigation has highlighted heavy-handed and abrupt inputs to the side-stick during the approach and touchdown.

Russia's federal Investigative Committee says that the aircraft made a rough landing, adding that the captain's actions to control the jet were "in violation of established rules" and led to the airframe damage and the outbreak of fire.


https://airwaysmag.com/airlines/aeroflot-superjet-crash-pilot-to-be-charged-over-deaths/

Moments before landing, wind shear alerts were given to the crew, but they did not act on such action.

The captain instead increased the required approach speed by 15 knots, with him also alternating sidestick inputs which caused the pitch to vary significantly.


Looks like they are putting the focus on pilot error, and not in what lead to the failures after the lightning strike.

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

Posted: Wed Oct 09, 2019 12:18 am
by lightsaber
Was the pilot trained in direct mode for a landing? for example if they're not trained in a flight simulator to correct Dutch roll in direct mode it is different than a normal mode.

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

Posted: Wed Oct 09, 2019 1:47 am
by TMccrury
My oldest brother is a fireman. He told me the herd instinct kicks in during an emergency. Folks want to get to get out quickly and the herd instinct is to go out the same door you came in with what you took in. In the case of an airplane, that would door 1L. A perfectly functioning exit could be right next to them and unless they are directed to it, will pass it up for where they came in. He told me, many folks have died because of the herd instinct.