Originally posted by Fear_of_Flying
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Sukhoi Superjet missing in Indonesia
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by 3WE View PostUntil we have any hints that support any of these theories, we need to do as is said at more mature aviation forums and...
Originally posted by GabrielEGPWS needs a terrain database and a 3D nav system. Were they ok?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Evan View Post1) Are regional jets always equipped with a worldwide EGPWS (or TAWS) database? 2) Is it possible that this demonstration aircraft did not have data for the region?
2) For almost every question that starts with "is it possible" the answer is "yes". How likely that that was the case? I don't know.
--- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
--- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---
Comment
-
Originally posted by Fear_of_Flying View PostDon't forget these ones (yours, I believe):
and
I also speculate.
But after a number of divergent, but plausible theories have been presented, it's time to stop pushing them until there's some genuine evidence to suggest one or the other.
Right now, we know that the plane crashed because it hit the mountain.Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.
Comment
-
Originally posted by 3WE View PostIndeed
I also speculate.
But after a number of divergent, but plausible theories have been presented, it's time to stop pushing them until there's some genuine evidence to suggest one or the other.
Right now, we know that the plane crashed because it hit the mountain.
So far, there has been no mention of ball lightning or terrorism, and this thread is a far cry from the 100+ pages of paranoid conspiracy theories seen in the Polish President thread even though we've known what happened there forever. Given that the wreckage of this crash is still smouldering, I really think it's ok to still be talking about possible causes. But since you've decided on page 5 that speculation is no longer useful, having posted your own speculation on page 2, I guess you'll be missing out...
Comment
-
The part that intregues me is that they were doing a descending orbit, supposedly well clear of the terrain, and then have somehow found themselves back at the hills. The question will have to be asked as to if they thought themselves high, and were doing a descending orbit to get back to the airfield, or if they were trying to get down for some other purpose.
The other question I would like to know is if the crew believed they were under radar control, and that the radar controller was responsible for terrain separation? In some parts of the world, a descent clearance such as this would require the controller to guarantee seperation, in other parts of the world it is up to the pilot to provide that seperation. Were they aware that they would not be given terrain seperation, and then just bungled their way back towards hills without realising it?
As always very sad.
And Evan, yes it is always possible that they did not have updated EGPWS data for the region, or that the data in that area was not complete. There are still very large areas of the world that have not been accurately mapped for any purpose, and grid lowest safe altitudes (as discussed before by Snydershapshots) are actually given as appropoximates! Being so close to Jakarta I would suspect that is unlikely though.
Comment
-
Originally posted by MCM View PostThe part that intregues me is that they were doing a descending orbit, supposedly well clear of the terrain, and then have somehow found themselves back at the hills. The question will have to be asked as to if they thought themselves high, and were doing a descending orbit to get back to the airfield, or if they were trying to get down for some other purpose.
The other question I would like to know is if the crew believed they were under radar control, and that the radar controller was responsible for terrain separation? In some parts of the world, a descent clearance such as this would require the controller to guarantee seperation, in other parts of the world it is up to the pilot to provide that seperation. Were they aware that they would not be given terrain seperation, and then just bungled their way back towards hills without realising it?
And Evan, yes it is always possible that they did not have updated EGPWS data for the region, or that the data in that area was not complete. There are still very large areas of the world that have not been accurately mapped for any purpose, and grid lowest safe altitudes (as discussed before by Snydershapshots) are actually given as appropoximates! Being so close to Jakarta I would suspect that is unlikely though.
Doesn't explain the real issue though, how they got into terrain proximity in the first place...
Comment
-
Originally posted by 3WE View PostIndeed
I also speculate.
But after a number of divergent, but plausible theories have been presented, it's time to stop pushing them until there's some genuine evidence to suggest one or the other.
Anyway, we'll miss ya.
Comment
-
From http://www.news24.com/World/News/Pil...press-20120514
Jakarta - The pilot of a Russian passenger jet that crashed into a mountain near Jakarta last week performed manoeuvres to impress potential buyers during one of its two flights in Indonesia, a newspaper reported on Monday.
The secretary general of the Indonesian National Air Carrier Association, Tengku Burhanuddin, said the Sukhoi Superjet 100's pilot pushed the aircraft to show its capacity to potential buyers during the first demonstration flight on Wednesday, the day of the crash, The Jakarta Post reported.
"They wanted to prove how good the Superjet 100 was," the Post quoted Burhanuddin, a passenger on the first flight, as saying. "That is what people do when they look for potential customers."
That first flight ended without incident, but the Sukhoi slammed into Mount Salak during the second demonstration flight. All 45 people on board were presumed dead.
Burhanuddin told the Post that on the first flight, the pilot descended from cruising altitude, a manoeuvre that allowed passengers to get a closer look at the ground in conditions resembling a conventional landing.
"It was a fantastic ride," he said. "As a person who loves aircraft, I can say that I still felt comfortable sitting in the passenger seat."
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Evan View PostThese were posted on the internet from 2009 (hopefully you have something more relevant):The "keep my tail out of trouble" disclaimer: Though I work in the airline industry, anything I post on here is my own speculation or opinion. Nothing I post is to be construed as "official" information from any air carrier or any other entity.
Comment
-
Latest news. Some things begin to clear up
It turned out that originally RA-97005 had been prepared for the demonstration flight in Asian countries. It was RA-97005 which was demonstrated in Kazakhstan and Pakistan (remember its photos in Sergey Dolya's blog, they were here not by chance http://sergeydolya.livejournal.com/465758.html) But in Pakistan, something happened to the airplane (problems with engine), and it was returned back to Russia.
Of course, nobody was willing to cancel well planned promotional tour because of the technical embarrassment, so they sent another aircraft with tail number 97004, which hadn't been originally prepared for a demonstration flight. The crew was professional but again it was out of the clear sky for them that they had to fly there. Moreover, the head engineer for test flights of RA-97004 Mr. Morgunov was out (on his leave) and another man from RA-97005 was sent to Indonesia (and died there) - a person who couldnt know 97004 well.
Катастрофа самолета SSJ-100 в Индонезии к настоящему времени объединила практически всех авиационных экспертов во мнении: причиной трагедии стала ошибка экипажа. При этом все оговариваются: пилоты были высочайшей квалификации, а потому до окончания расследования утверждать наверняка ничего нельзя и неэтично.Air crashes don't just happen... www.aircrash.ucoz.net
Comment
-
Originally posted by Dmitry View PostOf course, nobody was willing to cancel well planned promotional tour because of the technical embarrassment, so they sent another aircraft with tail number 97004, which hadn't been originally prepared for a demonstration flight.
What special preparations (other than a flight plan and some briefing on hazardous issues) are needed for a demonstration flight?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Evan View Post...and it lacked GPS mapping data for the region... ??? ...or even proper charts... ???
What special preparations (other than a flight plan and some briefing on hazardous issues) are needed for a demonstration flight?
Proper planning.
Required?
Not much. It's a private non-revenue flight. Just the minimum planning that I need to fly the Tomahawk (wich includes the availability of current charts for the zone).
Depending the case, even filling a fligth plan could be not required.
--- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
--- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---
Comment
Comment