Aeroflot Superjet at Moscow catches fire after touch down

[Not_Karl]

Emergency landing (after lightning strike and loss of electrical systems?). According to an eyewitness, the plane bounced when landing and its main landing gear collapsed, catching fire after that. This must be the first time I trust an eyewitness. 13 (or more) dead .
https://avherald.com/h?article=4c78f3e6&opt=0

[KPryor]

Latest I've seen now says 41 dead.
A lot of the stories I read earlier said the plane was on fire when it landed. I watched a video of the landing and it doesn't appear to have been on fire at touchdown, but it made a huge bounce on initial touchdown and when it came back down from that it looked like there was a tail strike (maybe) and it was at that point the flames started. As hard as it came down after the bounce I wonder if the landing gear collapsed and the engines struck pavement. Couldn't really tell in the video I saw.

[KPryor]

Scroll down just a bit on the page this link goes to and you'll see the video I saw.
https://twitter.com/RALee85/status/1125 ... 97/video/1

Edit: Just scrolled up on that page and saw other related videos.

[3WE]

Tough deal and several independent questions:

-What happened to initiate things?

-What caused the bad, bouncy landing (and will Evan determine that the crew used improvisation, and botched clear, easy procedures to land safety)?

-Is there a FBW & Alternate Law backup debate to be had?

-Was that system reasonably robust, or a insidious trap?

-Was the structural design reasonably robust to prevent a big fire and/or was the landing that hard?

-Could the evacuation have gone better?

-Was the escape system reasonably robust, or did it have shortcomings that contributed to the death toll?

~7 rows didn't make it out.

There are several reports we will have to wait on.

[Not_Karl]

-Could the evacuation have gone better?

-Was the escape system reasonably robust, or did it have shortcomings that contributed to the death toll?

Only the front doors could be used, and Argentinian media briefly mentioned people difficulting evacuation by trying to retrieve their bags or film.

[3WE]

-Could the evacuation have gone better?

-Was the escape system reasonably robust, or did it have shortcomings that contributed to the death toll?

Only the front doors could be used, and Argentinian media briefly mentioned people difficulting evacuation by trying to retrieve their bags or film.

Much to the disdain of Brianie, Evanie have discussed retrieving stuff...

I think if the plane was truly engulfed, we’d kiss the last top good bye.

[Not_Karl]

Much to the disdain of Brianie, Evanie have discussed retrieving stuff...

I think if the plane was truly engulfed, we’d kiss the last top good bye.

Media now has "THE" guy who obstructed evacuation while retrieving his bags (and then went to the Aeroflot counter to ask for a refund)...

[Gabriel]

Much to the disdain of Brianie, Evanie have discussed retrieving stuff...

I think if the plane was truly engulfed, we’d kiss the last top good bye.

Media now has "THE" guy who obstructed evacuation while retrieving his bags (and then went to the Aeroflot counter to ask for a refund)...

Media further mentions that he was in row 10 and that only 3 behind him escaped alive.

[3WE]

There's a new in-cabin video listed on Av-herald.

It seems to show a pretty normal approach, and flare/hold off...things look great and then wham- a hard touchdown where the camera/cameraman is forced down. The video then stops.

Probably not a total-disaster touchdown, but seemingly bounce-worthy.

I could have missed it, but I did not hear any evidence of "brace"/whatever commands either.

[Not_Karl]

Media further mentions that he was in row 10 and that only 3 behind him escaped alive.

Maybe we should put a bag-retrieving-passenger-stomper Brianie every two or three rows...

[elaw]

Interesting video from our favorite aviation speakist: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-y0dhayVtWY

[3WE]

Double posting a question- I have not gone back to scour the videos, but do the spoilers seem to be working properly, or did the lightning possibly fry that system and ultimately lead to the big bounces?

And Mentour seems to imply that it was a very fast approach/touchdown...those sorts of things do lead to bouncy landings...and were we at a reduced or zero flap setting where the spoilers might not automatically arm...

[elaw]

Total parlour-talking here but I imagine if you're going so fast as to make that kind of bounce likely, it's going to bounce with spoilers or without. The spoilers may make the bouncing less extreme...

[Gabriel]

And many planes include a logic that would retract the spoilers in a bounce.

[3WE]

Ericie:
The spoilers may make the bouncing less extreme...

@#%@%!

You and Gabiee both...don't need you to talk ABOUT the question...I want to know the answer.

A PLANE WAS HIT BY LIGHTNING AND CAUSED A FEW THINGS TO GO WRONG...

DID THAT INCLUDE THE SPOILERS, OR DIDN'T IT?

IF THE SPOILERS WEREN'T WORKING RIGHT (FOR DEPLOYMENT OR GABES AUTOMATIC RETRACTION)...IT MIGHT MAKE THE BOUNCING MORE EXTREME! (As would going fast) DUH!

AND THEREFORE BE A CONTRIBUTING FACTOR...

AND MAKE STABILIZING THE PLANE FEEL DIFFERENT THAN THE PILOTS PREVIOUS THOUSAND OR SO LANDINGS...


Update: I quit being lazy and looked at the video links at AvHerald. Not much there to make a spoiler determination.

If you do look closely at the approach/landing video (and it still makes me sad), they seem to do a wonderful job flying down to a hold off...but then there is some up and down attitude oscillations as they were holding off...and maybe they get a little worse until the first rather solid touchdown occurs.

[elaw]

Yeah but we don't know the answer!

So we're just going to sit here and make stuff up until the answer is revealed.

[3WE]

Ericie:
Yeah but we don't know the answer!

So we're just going to sit here and make stuff up until the final report is released.

Fixed.

[Gabriel]

@#%@%!

You and Gabiee both...don't need you to talk ABOUT the question...I want to know the answer.

A PLANE WAS HIT BY LIGHTNING AND CAUSED A FEW THINGS TO GO WRONG...

DID THAT INCLUDE THE SPOILERS, OR DIDN'T IT?

IF THE SPOILERS WEREN'T WORKING RIGHT (FOR DEPLOYMENT OR GABES AUTOMATIC RETRACTION)...IT MIGHT MAKE THE BOUNCING MORE EXTREME! (As would going fast) DUH!

AND THEREFORE BE A CONTRIBUTING FACTOR...

AND MAKE STABILIZING THE PLANE FEEL DIFFERENT THAN THE PILOTS PREVIOUS THOUSAND OR SO LANDINGS...

[Not_Karl]

I have metal, plastic, glass and ceramic but Not_linden mugs. What should I do?

[3WE]

I have metal, plastic, glass and ceramic but Not_linden mugs. What should I do?

No comprende in Englais either...

Is it Argentine humor that in spite of diligent efforts, it's hard to get everything you might want...

We understand that in the USA, but it doesn't quite rank comic-strip humour.

[Gabriel]

Well, that image is part of a longer sequence. The lady is just buying Nervocalm for his husband that has just been asked something complicated by his daughter Mafalda. I didn't intend it to be particularly humorous, just a message of "calm down".

The linden cup is a word play by not_karl. When you say "a cup of linden tea" in Spanish, while it is very clear from the context, grammatically it can be correctly interpreted as "a cup of linden tea" as intended or as "a linden cup of tea". Similar to when you ask for a "cup of coffee". Du you want the cup filled with coffee or made of coffee? Yes, I know, not very funny either.

[ocelot]

Tough deal and several independent questions:

There are now some answers:

-What happened to initiate things?

Apparently, a lightning strike.

-What caused the bad, bouncy landing (and will Evan determine that the crew used improvisation, and botched clear, easy procedures to land safety)?

Still not clear.

-Is there a FBW & Alternate Law backup debate to be had?

Yes.

-Was that system reasonably robust, or a insidious trap?

Yes.

-Was the structural design reasonably robust to prevent a big fire and/or was the landing that hard?

It was that hard.

-Could the evacuation have gone better?

Unclear.

Also,

DID THAT INCLUDE THE SPOILERS, OR DIDN'T IT?

Yes. The controls reverted to the SU95's equivalent of direct law, and in that state the spoilers don't deploy automatically.

[Gabriel]

A few comments:

-What caused the bad, bouncy landing (and will Evan determine that the crew used improvisation, and botched clear, easy procedures to land safety)?

Still not clear.

I think it is quite clear at least in a big part:
They were above maximum landing weight (MLS) and in direct law.
The pilots prepared to approach at a Vapp of 155 knots (higher speed due to being above the MLW and also less than full flaps in compliance with the procedures for landing in direct law).
They initially nailed the approach, on speed and on slope, however, the approach became unstabilized in the last part: They received WINDSHEAR warnings (which normally should result in a go-around), they deviated from the glide-slope and received a "glideslope" GPWS warning (normally a reason to go around too), they started to make significant corrections in pitch and thrust (another sing of losing the stabilized approach), they reached 170 knots (Vapp+15), had significant pitch oscillations before touchdown from +6 to -2 deg (another good reason to go around) and ended up making a 2.5+ Gs 3-point touchdown and bounced (not too much, just 6 ft), the spoilers didn't automatically extend (they don't do that in direct law, they are required to extend them manually, which they didn't either) and, after a new lost opportunity to go around, they made a second touchdown, this time nose-first and at almost 6 G. When you do that, of course the nose will jump up and any attempt to keep it down will result in repeated porpoising. The plane pitched up (by itself due to the bounce on the nose gear) and jumped much higher this time: 18ft. They did push down (which they should't have done, they should have gone around especially since they still were above 150 knots) and the nose came significantly down again and the plane developed a high sink rate, they were going to hit nose first again, but at the last second they pulled up and end up hitting at 5 G and the plane received significant damage as a result, not sure if just to the landing gear or if also the fuselage broke at this point.

Now, that said...

-Is there a FBW & Alternate Law backup debate to be had?

Yes.

They were in direct law, and it is not clear (at least to me) what role that played in the sequence of events described above.

-Was the structural design reasonably robust to prevent a big fire and/or was the landing that hard?

It was that hard.

That is a part that is not clear to me. Without the information available, I tend to think that yes, it was hard enough as to cause damage, the destruction of the landing gear, and perhaps some deformations in the fuselage, but it should have been a much more survivable event. The amount of fire during the roll-out (skid) is an indication of not just a breach in the fuel tanks but a total rupture of them end, even then, the fire and/or smoke should not have entered the fuselage so quickly and intensely as to kill more than 50% of its occupant when when an evacuation was initiated immediately and proceeded very quickly. It doesn't seem to have been that hard, and I seriously suspect that it would have ended much better in a Boeing or Airbus.

-Could the evacuation have gone better?

Unclear.

At least one person evacuated with cabin-size luggage. Only 2 persons that were sitting at any point behind him escaped alive. That makes me tend to think that possibly yes, it could have gone better, giving that it must have taken a few second to retrieve that luggage from the overhead bins and life or death was obviously a mater of a few seconds here.

[flyboy2548m]

Noted, thanks.

[3WE]

3BS Pontification:

I declare the spoiler thing significant.

My sympathy ramps up for the amazing swiss cheese here: 1. Lightning. 2. Fast speed (while they dutifully follow procedure). 3. Apparent wind shear. 4. MAYBE a slightly different feel to the control inputs. (Evanie gives this 0.0000% significance) 5. No automatic spoilers and apparently no manual ones either...

Then it's 'just another' bouncing landing...

Gabriel- You sound a bit too insistent that they should have gone around...lightning fries who-knows-what...maybe you better land the thing...In hindsight...maybe not, but you sound like Evan in your insistence that it was unquestionably called for.

Also, we'll have to wait for the final report, but at this point, I really don't question the structural design of the plane in any big way...seems to me the second or third landing was hard enough to break most aeroplanies: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yp7XkW72Ils