Russian Civil Aviation: News #3

Or perhaps an H tailed version to replace the An-225 and carry large out sized objects on its back...

Piloting the SUKHOI SSJ100 into Campeche , Latest Video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KwDsKerpKCQ

Sukhoi Superjet 100 caught fire as it touched the ground at Moscow's Sheremetyevo Airport on Sunday.

https://sputniknews.com/russia/201905051074728538-moscow-sheremetyevo-airport-plane-fire/

26 injured person, major accident but thankfully with no fatalitys yet

https://twitter.com/lentaruofficial/status/1125069060134322177?s=20

Edit: 13 fatalitys at least
https://tass.ru/proisshestviya/6402383

Absolutely terrible news.
The video looked pretty horrific as it was landing and all those flames were there. I couldn't understand how there was just one fatality at that stage.
Hopefully people moved forward, as it wasn't full and before the flames moved forward.

Just a couple of weeks ago I noticed that Russia hadn't had a major airline fatality recently. Sadly, I still think Russia's aviation safety could be better, just like its road safety. Altho ofcourse we have little idea what happened today.

A few things I wondered about. Was there any foam on the runway? Were fire engines slow in getting to the plane? The French engines have had several problems. Should lightening have that much effect? I know a problem with composites is that the can't transfer electricity in the way metals do. Composite fuselages/wings etc now have wire cages built in to conduct the elctricity from a lightening strike away. Perhaps this is a weak spot with composites? But who knows.

Most importantly, I hope the death toll doesn't get any higher.

https://mobile.twitter.com/RALee85/status/1125123879352119297

Moment of the fire start. Landed then bounced and relanded while hit the ground.

37 Out of 78 Passengers on Board of SSJ100 Survived Accident at Sheremetyevo accordinh to sputnik news.

http://tass.com/emergencies/1057010

At least 13 die in plane fire at Moscow airport

MOSCOW, May 5. /TASS/. At least 13 people have died in the plane fire at Moscow’s Sheremetyevo airport, six more were hurt, a source in Moscow’s medical services told TASS on Sunday.

"According to the latest reports, 13 people have died, six were hurt. A number of passengers are missing," the source said.

The Sukhoi Superjet 100 passenger plane with 73 passengers and five crew members was bound from Sheremetyevo for Russia’s northwestern city of Murmansk when it requested emergency landing. It caught fire while landing.

A criminal case was opened after the incident on charges of violation of safety rules entailing the death of two or more people.

How do you lose people in such an incident?

Anyway,hopefully we get details as to what happened.

Tass says 41 dead.

Peace to the families.

I wonder if it was sabotage.
Flight  SU 1492
SU = Soviet Union ( opposite of US).
1492 - the year America was discovered by Westerners.

All this near to the eve of the May Day Parade - symbol of Russian pride.
I think we shouldn't underestimate the effect Chernobyl had on the Ukraine  and the separation of the Ukraine and Russia. There's a dramatised Chernobyl series starting this week on Murdoch's channel  Expect a lot of crap said about Russia over the next week or 2 by Western media re this air disaster. Even tho so many of the SSH components are actually Western.

This was mentioned re the Indonesia SSJ crash.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2149377/Undercover-US-agents-brought-new-Superjet-Russia-s-extraordinary-claim-crash-killed-45.html

Lots of unanswered questions. People walking round with suitcases. People leaving at 1 per second rate via the slides. But  apparently 41 people killed.

well, criminal investigation opened.  Chances are, it was due to pilot error.  Very unfortunate. RIP to the dead.  Will probably hurt further SSJ-100 orders.

There was apparently an emergency onboard so potentially the fire already started and when it hit the ground hard (said to have bounced off the ground as it hit hard during landing) that just made the tail section burst.

Firebird wrote:I wonder if it was sabotage.
Flight  SU 1492
SU = Soviet Union ( opposite of US).
1492 - the year America was discovered by Westerners.

Ofcourse it was sabotage. Russian media already reported it.
Glow in the dark CIA niggas keep sabotaging Sukhoy SupersayanJet for really long time and we have to help Putin to stop this sabotaging

It had just taken off so it would be full of fuel... the video footage looked like Concorde... the whole aircraft was enveloped in flames... I am surprised anyone got out of there.

RIP to the victims and their families.

Ofcourse it was sabotage. Russian media already reported it.
Glow in the dark CIA niggas keep sabotaging Sukhoy SupersayanJet for really long time and we have to help Putin to stop this sabotaging

You are being sarcastic of course, but the CIA would be happy to undermine Russia any way it could including killing anyone to do so. They are the enemy.

The plane reported an emergency roughly 8 minutes after takeoff at an altitude of approximately 10,000 feet. There have been some suggestions of a lightning strike, but planes are designed (or should be) to survive lightning strikes. The pilot than attempted to return to the airport, and it appears from the flight track, made a second larger loop to allow a better approach angle. What is clear is the plane's flaps were not in the correct position for landing suggesting total electric system failure. Also, the gauges on the Superjet are, as far as I know, all electric - the pilot had no way to gauge his air speed and approach angle and would have had only throttle and rudder control. On approach, if you drop below critical speed the plane will pancake, so he came in fast and at too sharp an angle which is why he bounced off the runway. At that point, he had two choices: attempt to regain altitude, or to force the nose down and then pull up at the last moment to avoid crashing the plane. Unfortunately, the force on the rear landing gear was too great causing the crash and rupturing of fuel lines/tanks.

Several issues are raised by this occurrence: Was it a lightning strike or some other fire/problem with the electrical system that caused the initial emergency? Why are there not more redundant analog controls on modern aircraft? Was pilot training sufficient at Aeroflot to handle this type of emergency? (Keep in mind on most flights autopilot does the work down to about the last 100 feet in terms of approach angle.) Why were fire apparatus not positioned along the runway - it apparently took two minutes for apparatus to reach the stricken plane. That is unacceptable in a known emergency landing.

Finally, there have been persistent media reports about maintenance issues with Superjets (some of this undoubtedly is western media anti-Russian pro-Airbus/Boeing bias). Aeroflot's management as a state company had to be arm twisted into buying Russian aircraft and many large Russian airlines like S7 still buy only non-Russian planes. This will give them (not to mention foreign airlines) more leverage to avoid buying Russian produced airplanes.

calripson wrote:The plane reported an emergency roughly 8 minutes after takeoff at an altitude of approximately 10,000 feet. There have been some suggestions of a lightning strike, but planes are designed (or should be) to survive lightning strikes. The pilot than attempted to return to the airport, and it appears from the flight track, made a second larger loop to allow a better approach angle. What is clear is the plane's flaps were not in the correct position for landing suggesting total electric system failure. Also, the gauges on the Superjet are, as far as I know, all electric - the pilot had no way to gauge his air speed and approach angle and would have had only throttle and rudder control. On approach, if you drop below critical speed the plane will pancake, so he came in fast and at too sharp an angle  which is why he bounced off the runway. At that point, he had two choices: attempt to regain altitude, or to force the nose down and then pull up at the last moment to avoid crashing the plane. Unfortunately, the force on the rear landing gear was too great causing the crash and rupturing of fuel lines/tanks.

Several issues are raised by this occurrence: Was it a lightning strike or some other fire/problem with the electrical system that caused the initial emergency? Why are there not more redundant analog controls on modern aircraft? Was pilot training sufficient at Aeroflot to handle this type of emergency? (Keep in mind on most flights autopilot does the work down to about the last 100 feet in terms of approach angle.) Why were fire apparatus not positioned along the runway - it apparently took two minutes for apparatus to reach the stricken plane. That is unacceptable in a known emergency landing.

Finally, there have been persistent media reports about maintenance issues with Superjets (some of this undoubtedly is western media anti-Russian pro-Airbus/Boeing bias). Aeroflot's management as a state company had to be arm twisted into buying Russian aircraft and many large Russian airlines like S7 still buy only non-Russian planes. This will give them (not to mention foreign airlines) more leverage to avoid buying Russian produced airplanes.

except that in SSJ-100 case, its mostly foreign components.  Its barely 50% Russian.  They plan to fix that though.

Only one with spare parts issue was actually Interjet, as others had no issue, especially local companies.  As for Aeroflot forced to buying, is partially correct.  There was media reports of Boeing bribing those in Aeroflot which forced Il-96 to be discontinued.

S7 will also end up buying Russian and eventually others as they will find getting foreign jets will become more expensive and difficult due to politics. But let us not kid ourselves. After the Boeing 737 crashes lately, it really hit hard at Boeing's orders. This may not due to being potentially a freak accident. Its best to wait and see what the end results of the investigation is. If failure of the onboard electronics (which is French) then uh oh, guess got to go with some other brand of onboard electronics.

No, Cityjet had issues and when their planes were wet-leased to Brussels airline they reported over 80 "issues" in a 22 day period (at least that is what the western media reported). Even Aeroflot until fairly recently would show a low number of Superjet flights on their list of active flights relative to the number of Superjets in their inventory. I don't know why this was the case, but the difference was apparent vis-a-vis Airbus 320 for example.

calripson wrote:No, Cityjet had issues and when their planes were wet-leased to Brussels airline they reported over 80 "issues" in a 22 day period (at least that is what the western media reported). Even Aeroflot until fairly recently would show a low number of Superjet flights on their list of active flights relative to the number of Superjets in their inventory. I don't know why this was the case, but the difference was apparent vis-a-vis Airbus 320 for example.

Well, that is what one gets when they go with a mostly western component aircraft.

Superjet is a very regional jet.  Aeroflot is really only Russias major international airline so having lower Superjet flights when majority of Russians use train to travel around is a good reason.  Plus recently Aeroflot was bitching how regional flights are not profitable due to "costs".

If you think this is somehow just a Russian issue, then look no further at Max 8 and their two recent crashes.  Or well any other aircraft that crashes.  As for availability of spare parts, it is never Russian companies that face the issue but international.  So I have no idea who are responsible for that - leasing company possibly?

I personally do not like flying period.  Simply as you said, this system should have an analogue backup to allow control.  That would have probably prevented casualties.  Guess what? Airbus wants to remove analogue systems.

Edit: I actually found an article that is good to read:

https://www.ruaviation.com/docs/3/2019/2/2/221/?h

Judging by the article, PS-90 engines are a bitch. Hopefully PD-14 solves the issue and abandon those french core engines.

https://www.ruaviation.com/news/2019/5/6/13438/

So the aircraft was recently under maintenance in April.

So the issue could possibly be where the maintenance team was.  This is an issue if the plane initially functioned well but the maintenance crew fucked up.

I wonder, who operates the maintenance of these jets? I am assuming Sukhoi. But how? Do they fly the planes out to their main factory? or do they have shops elsewhere?

Airplane performed well and was maintained well.
Crew performed admirably and saved everyone.


Aircraft was hit by lightning and survived but electronics were messed up (as usual) so pilots returned to land having lost communication with tower and they crash landed with all passengers alive but aircraft caught fire and passengers just needed to evacuate quickly.

This is what happened next:

Russian plane crash: Aviation experts furious that passengers took luggage

https://7news.com.au/news/disaster-and-emergency/your-bag-or-your-life-or-someone-elses-aviation-experts-furious-at-crash-video-c-95950


Welcome to Russia...

I though the aircrafts electronics should be protected from lightning?

Aircraft get struck by lightning all the time - they do not crash as a result as they are designed with that in mind. There is either a design flaw or as I suspect, lightning is not the cause. In any event, there was a catastrophic electrical system failure. That is why the landing was so hard. It also begs the question why the pilot did not dump fuel prior to landing? A skilled pilot could have landed that plane safely. Ironically, if they were flying an old Soviet-built plane with analog controls they probably would have landed safely too.

The engines are french SAFRAN engines. Very reliable and i think it stinks how easy some start to throw insults regarding that.

The Russian jet needed good engines and France delivered, because teh americans and british did not.

It appears bot engines were till operational during landing, otherwise the aircraft could not have landed safely that way.

It looked like our Concorde that went down and in her case the fuel tank was damaged.

Maybe same happened with that jet?

So much can happen. Maybe debris on the runway was slammed upwards and hit the tank, like with Concorde. Or the ground staff did not close the fuel intake properly.

You may laugh but this happened to a portuguese jet before.

When you read comments in american media they say shitty russian plane, shitty french engines.

Big words coming from some who build one sensor into an aircraft that decides alone over life and death.

P.s.: Pilot cant dump fuel in Superjet. Its a regional Jet. Aircrafts of that size dont offer fuel dumping. Their maximum landing weight is same as maximum take off weight.

Even in the A320 that is bigger than Superjet, fuel dumping is just an additional option.

Fuel Dumping only becomes relevant in the big ones like A350 / A380 or Boeing 747.

calripson wrote:Aircraft get struck by lightning all the time - they do not crash as a result as they are designed with that in mind. There is either a design flaw or as I suspect, lightning is not the cause. In any event, there was a catastrophic electrical system failure. That is why the landing was so hard. It also begs the question why the pilot did not dump fuel prior to landing? A skilled pilot could have landed that plane safely. Ironically, if they were flying an old Soviet-built plane with analog controls they probably would have landed safely too.

I'm wondering that too since lightning strike would not have caused electrical systems to fail. Something else failed here.

On the video I posted it seems landing speed was to high or angle of the landing too brutal.

Maybe sensors were destroyed and pilots had wrong speed and AoA. Which is possible if a lightebing destroyed some electronics.

Isos wrote:On the video I posted it seems landing speed was to high or angle of the landing too brutal.

Maybe sensors were destroyed and pilots had wrong speed and AoA. Which is possible if a lightning destroyed some electronics.

Pilot had no sensors nor controls regarding velocity or angle of descent. To make the Superjet look super duper modern like Airbus/Boeing, they eliminated analog controls. Electrical control fly by wire system ect are supposed to be redundant. Obviously, not in this case. The pilot who I think may have panicked a little, was forced to land blind. He had already aborted one attempted landing to get a better approach and I am sure was cognizant that it was dusk and light conditions would only get worse. Bounced it - it's called ballooning, then decided to go for broke (no pun intended) and just forced it down. He probably should have aborted and come around for a third attempt. Runways should have been foamed and fire trucks should have been in position all down the runway. Also, the male steward opened the rear escape hatch when there was clear fire outside which allowed a fireball to come inside. This is faulty training in my opinion. The three front seated female stewardesses did a heroic job and as one can tell from the video, the last person off that plane was a stewardess. The pilots were the first ones off by the way.

Aristide wrote:The engines are french SAFRAN engines. Very reliable and i think it stinks how easy some start to throw insults regarding that.

The Russian jet needed good engines and France delivered, because teh americans and british did not.

Unfortunately, they do not seem to be very reliable.

Thread: according to senior sources at 4 airlines that operate the aircraft, the SSJ100 Superjet's poor maintenance record is due to problems with its French-Russian SaM146 engines built by ODK-Saturn and Safran.
https://www.vedomosti.ru/business/articles/2018/11/21/787112-ssj100-malo-letaet

Compared to the Embraer E170, which flew an average of 6 hours a day for S7 airlines, and Airbus 320/321 and Boeing 737 aircraft that average ~10 hours a day, SSJ100s flown by Russian airlines only flew 3.3 hours a day on average. 2/

Apparently, cracks can appear in the SaM146's combustion chamber after 2,000-3,000 flight hours, which means they have to be sent for high-level maintenance, but the manufacturer says an overhaul should not be required until after 7,500-8,000 flight hours. 3/

The same problems don't exist for other Safran engines. Repairing an engine costs between $2-5 million and lasts 2 months. Because it is a design flaw, the manufacturer covers the cost, but there aren't enough spare engines to keep the aircraft in operation. 4/

The SSJ100's manufacturer, Sukhoi Civil Aircraft, produces 60–70 engines per year for 30–35 aircraft, but all of these engines go to new aircraft, so there aren't enough engines for existing aircraft. 5/

The biggest operator of the SSJ100, Aeroflot, says that, at best, half of their 50 SSJ100s are operational at any time. In order to fix the issue, large investments are needed, but Safran doesn't want to do so because of reduced SSJ100 production #'s (1.3k initially, now 595). 6/

https://twitter.com/RALee85/status/1066393487271227392

Hence why PD-14 is desperately needed.  Safran and rest are being greedy in that they want to make sure that one buys extra engines rather than fixing the initial issue. Wonder why PS-90A3 was never offered?