Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Aeroflot Superjet 100 fire and evacuation at UUEE

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    .....and yet again passengers get their hand baggage before evacuating. From what little I saw of the evacuation there seemed to be a distinct pause in front of each passenger seen with hand baggage. That equals a delay to other passengers evacuating and must surely have contributed to some of the deaths.
    Every passenger in possession of hand baggage should be prosecuted for manslaughter.
    If it 'ain't broken........ Don't try to mend it !

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by brianw999 View Post
      Every passenger in possession of hand baggage should be prosecuted for manslaughter.
      And you don't think they could claim 'temporary insanity'? Have you seen that interior video?! Let he who has waded through the fiery aisles of Russian aviation with a clear head cast the first stone.

      Comment


      • #33
        On May 6th 2019 Roaviatsia (Russia's CAA) reported a static atmospheric discharge at about 2100 meters (6900 feet MSL) resulted in the failure of the radios and other equipment including the autopilot. The crew returned to Sheremetyevo squawking loss of radio contact, subsequently emergency. While landing on runway 24L the aircraft experienced a rough landing, bounces and partial destruction of the aircraft. Following the 4th touch down fire broke out at the tail section of the aircraft and the aircraft veered left off the runway coming to a stop between taxiways A2 and A3. The aircraft burned partially out, there were fatalities and injuries.
        http://avherald.com/h?article=4c797dd7&opt=0

        --- 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


        • #34
          Originally posted by BBC
          Pilot Denis Yevdokimov told Russian media that the lightning had interrupted communication with air traffic controllers and forced him to switch to emergency manual mode.
          Originally posted by BBC
          Russia's transport ministry has decided against grounding Superjet-100s, saying there is no obvious sign of a design fault.
          Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. Ok, a grounding might be a bit hasty, but obvious signs of design faults...?

          Well, a lightning strike (not such an uncommon event) apparently knocked out the radios and the flight-control computers (if not the entire primary electrical system). That's not supposed to happen. There are rare forms of lightning that will exceed protections, but the odds of this are remote.

          And a hard landing resulted in breached fuel tanks. That's not supposed to happen either. So I think there is reason to say there are obvious signs of design faults here.

          Start with lightning protection. Are the composite conductive layers adequate? Is there any vulnerable area? What about transient protection and surge suppression of vital avionics? Is it adequate?

          Then I would want to know how a hard gear-collapse landing could result in a fuel tank breach. Does something need to be structurally rethought there?

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
            Link please?
            My guess it is the second video here:

            https://www.liveleak.com/view?t=u6KG2_1557114046

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by xspeedy View Post
              My guess it is the second video here:

              https://www.liveleak.com/view?t=u6KG2_1557114046
              I don't see any gear elements in these videos.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by TeeVee View Post
                So much for the ultra modern up to date ssj..... hard landing and...
                Ultra modern? I don't think anyone ever said that. It was clear from the beginning the plane was a bit behind even compared to the E-Jets and the CRJs, let alone when compared to the E2 or the CSeries (I mean the A220). It is built by a company that doesn't have any experience in commercial airplanes, and it relies heavily on western components. To be honest, it seems Sukhoi has been struggling with its latest military jet as well.
                Then there is the sub-par dispatch reliability and the poor service and spare parts network.

                The SSJ is just an attempt by the Russians to get back into the game. It was never going to be a state of the art game changer.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Evan View Post
                  I don't see any gear elements in these videos.
                  There is some strut-like structure sticking out in the beginning of the first video.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Black Ram View Post
                    Ultra modern? I don't think anyone ever said that. It was clear from the beginning the plane was a bit behind even compared to the E-Jets and the CRJs, let alone when compared to the E2 or the CSeries (I mean the A220). It is built by a company that doesn't have any experience in commercial airplanes, and it relies heavily on western components. To be honest, it seems Sukhoi has been struggling with its latest military jet as well.
                    Then there is the sub-par dispatch reliability and the poor service and spare parts network.

                    The SSJ is just an attempt by the Russians to get back into the game. It was never going to be a state of the art game changer.
                    Do a bit of research. There's a lot of high-tech development that went into the SSJ, particularly the 9.9 aspect ratio wings. The FBW is state-of-the-art and very robust, (using LLI (Liebherr Lindenberg) FCC's and Thales avionics, some purpose built from scratch). It is certified as a Protected Aircraft. It is also modern is its reduced complexity.

                    "Ultra-modern", maybe not, but definitely a modern, 21st century aircraft. Much more modern than the 737-Max. There may be some serious design issues that come to light as a result of the investigation, but otherwise, it's a pretty impressive aircraft for a first-time effort.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Black Ram View Post
                      Ultra modern? I don't think anyone ever said that. It was clear from the beginning the plane was a bit behind even compared to the E-Jets and the CRJs, let alone when compared to the E2 or the CSeries (I mean the A220). It is built by a company that doesn't have any experience in commercial airplanes, and it relies heavily on western components. To be honest, it seems Sukhoi has been struggling with its latest military jet as well.
                      Then there is the sub-par dispatch reliability and the poor service and spare parts network.

                      The SSJ is just an attempt by the Russians to get back into the game. It was never going to be a state of the art game changer.
                      it was a light dig at evan for playing it up in the ethiopian thread.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by TeeVee View Post
                        it was a light dig at evan for playing it up in the ethiopian thread.
                        I pointed out in the Ethiopian 302 thread that it is a 21st-century airframe. The planned 130-seat version will be able to safely mount the game-changing PW1000G without needing any spooky artificial stability software.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Evan View Post
                          I pointed out in the Ethiopian 302 thread that it is a 21st-century airframe. The planned 130-seat version will be able to safely mount the game-changing PW1000G without needing any spooky artificial stability software.
                          Have you ever been up close to a Russian aircraft? I have to many, as long as the crew promised not to start it I was happy to take a look. The AN-124 and the IL-176 look like they have instruments from a WWII submarine in them. The smell is usually the same as the porta-pottys at the fairgrounds. Our company was not allowed to have crew travel on any Russian aircraft or airline.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
                            Have you ever been up close to a Russian aircraft? I have to many, as long as the crew promised not to start it I was happy to take a look. The AN-124 and the IL-176 look like they have instruments from a WWII submarine in them. The smell is usually the same as the porta-pottys at the fairgrounds. Our company was not allowed to have crew travel on any Russian aircraft or airline.
                            No doubt, a lot of Russian aircraft look (and perhaps smell) much better on the outside. But the SJ-100 was a revolution in that respect. It was developed with guidance from western companies, including Boeing. It was intended to compete in western markets. There is no submarine wiring involved. The cockpit is a very modern affair. Some of the aerodynamic technology involved is downright impressive.

                            Again, I'm not calling it ultra-modern, but to call it sub-par is a disservice to the people who designed it and all the hard work that went into it. It is more modern than Boeing's single-aisle offering. It is a 21st-century airframe. We want the Russians to modernize. We need to encourage the efforts they are making.

                            Yes, it suffers from supply-chain problems, but that doesn't mean it's a sub-par aircraft. If the proposed NG variants come together with the PW1000G and they get the parts thing sorted out, they could be serious competitors.

                            In other words, Boeing needs to brush off the arrogance, get its head out of its ass and come up with a 21st-century design of their own. Before the Russian's invade.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Evan View Post
                              In other words, Boeing needs to brush off the arrogance, get its head out of its ass and come up with a 21st-century design of their own. Before the Russian's invade.
                              I wouldn't worry about that too terribly much, Evan. They're not even building enough for their own market, and there are reasons for that, some good, some not so good.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by ATLcrew View Post
                                I wouldn't worry about that too terribly much, Evan. They're not even building enough for their own market, and there are reasons for that, some good, some not so good.
                                Ok, yes, it's a clean-sheet, entry level effort, it's buggy af and the Russians are sort of new to customer service, but they have state funding, they could still pull it together and get an NG together by the early 2020's, with the same PW1000G engine that is powering the A320NEO but at a fifth of the cost. That could make a serious dent in the Asian and South American markets, the ones that Boeing covets with their fly-by-piano-wire 737-Max. You could laugh at that suggestion, but some might call that arrogance...

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X