Another Airline Crash

[irishsooner 9]

I was wondering why they didn't deploy emergency equipment or vehicles sooner, looking at video i saw? Not sure what the procedures are at a major airport but seems should have put fire out sooner. 

[KevinAu 441]

1 hour ago, zmak said:

The ASI works on RAM air from the pitots so if not blocked its all they needed to land VFR.  Why it was such terrible landing is a mystery so far

What if it was displayed on an electronic screen?

[zmak 331]

1 hour ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

The reason for the heavy landing was the aircraft was full of fuel. I fail to understand why people with an interest in flight sim don't understand the basics. The aircraft was hit by lightning very soon after take-off and returned within minutes. It was far too heavy for a conventional landing so that's why it was a "terrible landing" to use your quote.

You know for sure they didnt dump?

[Ray Proudfoot 9,045]

19 minutes ago, zmak said:

You know for sure they didnt dump?

Why don't you do your own research? Look at this report. I would think there was no time for a dump besides which it can only be done above a certain altitude.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-48174169

[pete_auau 1,168]

1 hour ago, zmak said:

You know for sure they didnt dump?

you can only dump fuel if you got plenty of time to do it,  obviously this  aircraft  did  not

Edited May 7, 2019 by pete_auau

[Ray Proudfoot 9,045]

7 minutes ago, pete_auau said:

you  can  only  dump  fuel  if  you  got  plenty  of time  to  do it  obviously   this  aircraft  did  not

Precisely. And if you watch the video it was a hard tail strike that caused the fire. There seem to be people here questioning the ability of the pilot. Given 37 people escaped I would say he did a great job in saving those lives.

[Jim Young 2,356]

For the souls in the rear of the aircraft, I feel sorry for their loss.  One was a young American.  It was likely due to the fact the passengers in the front were trying to get their luggage (and some did)..  Think airlines need to think about having an electronic lock to be activated in accidents like this.

[ckyliu 1,749]

You guys need to read the AV Herald! It was stated there some time ago that the aircraft was not on fire until landing. Eyewitness reports say the aircraft bounced three times and on the third touchdown the gear collapsed and fire broke out.

@Ray Proudfoot I know the BBC report states there was nowhere considered appropriate to do a dump but I question if the SSJ even has fuel dumping capability; it's normally something only seen on widebody airliners.

Edited May 7, 2019 by ckyliu

[Christopher Low 5,400]

Is it true that some of the passengers at the front of the aircraft were trying to get their hand luggage out? If so, that is utterly disgraceful. The entire rear of the plane on fire, and some idiots at the front are more concerned with saving their bags??

[KevinAu 441]

2 hours ago, zmak said:

You know for sure they didnt dump?

A superjet 100 can dump fuel?

[Ray Proudfoot 9,045]

41 minutes ago, ckyliu said:

You guys need to read the AV Herald! It was stated there some time ago that the aircraft was not on fire until landing. Eyewitness reports say the aircraft bounced three times and on the third touchdown the gear collapsed and fire broke out.

@Ray Proudfoot I know the BBC report states there was nowhere considered appropriate to do a dump but I question if the SSJ even has fuel dumping capability; it's normally something only seen on widebody airliners.

Not all need to read it. Just those who speculate without evidence. I haven't a clue whether fuel could be dumped or not. I would have thought it would have the capability. It's only a pump after all.

[ckyliu 1,749]

@Ray ProudfootFor context neither the 737, 757 nor A320 can fuel dump. It's really not a commonplace feature outside of widebodies (even then it sometimes an option) because generally there is not a huge amount of difference between MTOW and MLW on short and medium haul aircraft. Also it is generally done through gravity, not pumps.

Edited May 7, 2019 by ckyliu

[KevinAu 441]

2 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Not all need to read it. Just those who speculate without evidence. I haven't a clue whether fuel could be dumped or not. I would have thought it would have the capability. It's only a pump after all.

It would also be a dump valve, piping out to an outlet and controls. Fuel dumping is a feature usually only reserved for heavies and military aircraft.

[Chock 17,769]

10 hours ago, jabloomf1230 said:

Maybe someone else can answer this. I always believed that commercial airliners were somewhat immune to lightning strikes. Apparently this is not the case. Second, was the aircraft carrying a full load of fuel? That probably didn't help the situation either due to both the weight and the fire risk.

It's a popular myth that aircraft are unlikely to be damaged by lightning strikes, they are fairly frequently damaged by them, on average, each passenger airliner gets hit by a lightning strike about once every year or so. Most of the time the damage is little to minimal, but not always...

For example, we had one of ours struck by lightning a couple of months ago (it was a Thomas Cook Airbus A321), in fact it actually got hit by quite a few lightning strikes, including one as it took off which did no damage. The strike which did damage it put a hole in the fuselage, this occurred whilst it was over the Bay of Biscay, which is notorious for stormy weather, forcing it to turn back to Manchester. With a holed fuselage, it couldn't maintain full pressurisation, so it came back at to Manchester flying at about 17,000 feet and landed at Manchester to be escorted by emergency vehicles out to one of the remote stands. The passengers were transferred to another aeroplane (all but two of them, who requested to disembark and not fly again). The damaged aircraft was towed into the hangar to be repaired and it is now back in service.

A few years ago, a couple of guys were flying an SZD-50-3 (which is a GRP two seat glider) over the UK, when their aircraft was struck by lightning. The wings on the SZD-50-3 have a foam core inside the GRP. When lightning hit the wing, the strike drilled a hole through the GRP exterior and superheated the foam core in the wing, which being slightly damp, rapidly expanded the water into steam and blew the wings apart, this is similar to how trees explode when struck by lightning as the sap gets superheated and expands rapidly. The two people flying that SZD didn't even have to bail out though, as the aircraft disintegrated, all they had to do was pull the ripcord on their 'chutes! One of them had a perforated eardrum caused by the the bang of the strike, the other broke his leg on touchdown when he landed on a garage roof. So on the whole they got away with it pretty lightly. A couple of weeks after this incident, I was flying the same type of aircraft and got stuck in a thunderstorm; I was forced down to very low altitude by the downdrafts in the storm and as you can imagine, I was hoping I'd not suffer a similar strike because I would have been too low to use the 'chute. Fortunately, I managed to claw back some altitude and just scrape my way back to the airfield, but for a time I was considering a forced landing in a field.

At this point all is speculation on what happened to the airliner in question, although it is quite possible that the lightning strike could have damaged the controls or avionics, making a landing difficult. It's very easy to be an armchair quarterback and say you could have done better, but unless you were there at the controls, you can't really know that. For example, in that thunderstorm incident which I related, there were two other aircraft so keen to get down on the airfield out of that storm, that they came in downwind as I was landing the right way into the wind, I literally landed in between them both coming the opposite way, and one of the guys was so keen to get down on the deck that he forgot to lower his landing gear! I gave him a quick call when I saw his wheels were up, but he didn't hear it and he was almost ready to flare at that point anyway. Fortunately the grass was so wet that the aircraft was completely undamaged apart from some grass stains on its belly; we actually picked it up and he dropped the landing gear and it was fine. It just goes to show you though that even a good pilot can get panicky and fluff a landing when lightning is about (that guy who landed wheels up was an instructor).

Edited May 7, 2019 by Chock

[Ray Proudfoot 9,045]

52 minutes ago, ckyliu said:

@Ray ProudfootFor context neither the 737, 757 nor A320 can fuel dump. It's really not a commonplace feature outside of widebodies (even then it sometimes an option) because generally there is not a huge amount of difference between MTOW and MLW on short and medium haul aircraft. Also it is generally done through gravity, not pumps.

Understood but you can see the difficulty he had in landing. That was a big bounce. Maybe because of the cicumstances.