there are no irreplaceble documents, and actually bugs really can delayed evacuation, not so much as we espected by video but still.
but passengers was not briefed for emergency landing and some of them take they bugs.

Armadillo1 wrote:

yes, it may be passport, may be not only, is it matter?

Because it may be tempting to grab internal passports during the evacuation (and more so than "generic" documents). It can be hard to get anything done without one. I have no idea how easy they are to replace.

I don't think we need to debate the cost of sprinklers in runways. There are more fundamental issues with that setup, e.g., firefighters apply fairly significant water amounts but choose the target carefully. They may also apply different chemicals (foam etc). I don't know how to make the automatic sprinklers do the same, even if the burning planes would always be in the runway centerline, let alone if they are off or veered 50 meters to the grass. Any non-significant water amounts or delivery not at the right place would amount to no help at all.

Anyway, I'm of of the opinion that future certification of planes should take a more realistic approach to evacuations. I really don't know how they were so successful for instance in the Toronto accident. When I'm trying to get out of an airplane in normal situations, it seems that there's always a some number of poor mobility or for some reason confused passengers who take easily 90 seconds just for their own exit from the seat, let alone walking down the aisle or getting everyone out. And as we know, amount of luggage in the cabin has increased for various reasons, and I for one believe that it would a safety and efficiency benefit if there were stricter limits to how large and heave you can take to the cabin.

But, to cut to the chase, I think the real issues in this accident center around why the plane failed to land appropriately. Maybe control problems, lightning hit, maybe piloting. But I would also like to understand the forces that acted on the aircraft and caused the gear to damage the fuel tanks. With enough force, every plane will break, although some might break in better ways than others. I'd like to see if the forces in this accident were beyond design limits, or if the design failed somehow.

SurlyBonds wrote:

Armadillo1 wrote:

yes, it may be passport, may be not only, is it matter?

Because it may be tempting to grab internal passports during the evacuation (and more so than "generic" documents). It can be hard to get anything done without one. I have no idea how easy they are to replace.

I've spoken of this here: viewtopic.php?f=4&t=1421915&start=100#p21340143
But it is not easy to replace it. And sure, you can't do anything without an internal passport. Not even board another flight, or a train, or nothing.

This is something i've asked myself...
Someone who survived this crash, not injured, nor nothing.
He returns back to the airport, he is checked by doctors (who agree he has nothing). He maybe interviewed by authorities, by press, etc. Does he have to go to the Check In (or the Ticket Office in any case) and say: well, I'm ready to be rescheduled on the next flight, I need to work tomorrow and I need to be back in Murmansk... Is it so? How is it?
Is it often that the investigative team ask passengers to recall their experiences on board the plane in an emergency?

The Sheremetyevo Airport website has published last night a good chronology of the fire and the fire crew response.
https://www.svo.aero/en/press_center/pr ... komandy-sh (English version on the link)

eielef wrote:

Starlionblue wrote:

It wasn't a non-issue. The cost of baggage handling a few decades ago is exactly why companies put those hold luggage pricing policies in place. So they could save money. We could go back to the practice from those days, but we'd have to accept higher ticket prices due to higher costs. And apparently Joe Public is not ok with that.

Do you really thing the airlines charge you because for them is very expensive the baggage handling fees? No. They do it because they can profit. Now, charge for hand luggage (same revenue), but make the other free... Overhead bin compartments are too packed these days, people is angry because THEIR bags don't fit, they don't want to put their bags under the seat in front of them (their feet doesn't fit the VERY tight pitch of airlines these days)... AND cargo holds are mostly empty.

Some months ago, in the airport in the town I was born, at the same time landed FlyBondi (B738 - Low Cost, luggage at a extra/expensive charge) and Aerolíneas Argentinas (B738, luggage at that moment free). Flybondi (LF160/189) used only one baggage cart, while Aerolineas Argentinas (LF160/170) used four full ones. As there are baggage belts, those in FlyBondi left in almost no time, those of AR waited some 10 minutes or less..
Now, AR charges for baggage (but is not a lowcost yet). And people puts everything on their handluggage. So boarding takes like forever, because people loves arguing with ground employees: I paid a very expensive ticket, I'm not flying in a LowCost, i'm not paying this shit. If it doesn't fit in the box (because it must fit in a box), I'm not paying a dime extra.

Airlines don't care about the luggage desires of any but premium passengers.

I do think baggage handling is part of the cost. The cabin crew are paid the same regardless. Passengers aren't paid. Baggage handling is probably based on volume and/or time.

Armadillo1 wrote:

there are no irreplaceble documents, and actually bugs really can delayed evacuation, not so much as we espected by video but still.
but passengers was not briefed for emergency landing and some of them take they bugs.

"Bags". Bugs are something else.

hivue wrote:

dennypayne wrote:

I'm also quite suspicious of the pilot's initial statement that he didn't notice anything wrong with the landing, when the video clearly shows the horrific bounce.

And after the bounce a failure to abort a landing attempt that long ago had gone pear shaped. Here is a fascinating first hand account of a pilot struck by lightning --

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OY7LxyjHL8o

An F-18 and not a transport category airplane and maybe not the same crew protection from lightning as is found on the SSJ, but the strike had serious physiological effects on one of the pilots. Lighning can do weird things.

well he clearly said at the end, hornet doesn't have any sort of protection for the pilot, the lightning went straight through him through the coms;
I seriously doubt that would be the same case here...

eielef wrote:

The Sheremetyevo Airport website has published last night a good chronology of the fire and the fire crew response.
https://www.svo.aero/en/press_center/pr ... komandy-sh (English version on the link)

I stopped reading after Airport fire brigades and rescue teams arrived at the scene in 1 minute. cause its a LIE! at least two minutes it was before first firefighters arrived, here is a video of it

https://twitter.com/NeTVRussia/status/1 ... h6_TaVJe00

AirlineCritic wrote:

I don't think we need to debate the cost of sprinklers in runways. There are more fundamental issues with that setup, e.g., firefighters apply fairly significant water amounts but choose the target carefully. They may also apply different chemicals (foam etc). I don't know how to make the automatic sprinklers do the same, even if the burning planes would always be in the runway centerline, let alone if they are off or veered 50 meters to the grass. Any non-significant water amounts or delivery not at the right place would amount to no help at all.

Two considerations to make all of this "all runways equipped with water sprinklers" a dead end
1) any airport that sees subzero temperatures (and boy does SVO see plenty of that) would be on the hook of designing not only the water sprinklers themselves, but also the heating system, operational 24/7 in the cold season, to constantly keep ALL parts of the water supply, distribution and sprinkler system (including those exposed to the elements) heated and free from ice. Any failure to keep it heated will result in ice rupturing the pipes -- and needing replacement
2) like you mentioned, in case foam is chosen by the fire brigade, and sprinklers continue to deliver water, you could end up in worsening the situation, like in USS Forrestal fire in 1967, when guys with water hoses simply washed the foam away, hampering firefighting effort.

1st firefighter truck come from behind and not seen on most videos

has this video has been posted here?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZWI2Dhq6r4

Its from inside the plane but different and way more scary from he one I saw before;

edit: The author is the same that posted this video, flight before the crash:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEs9exbTDqI&t=6s

We all said it was fake, but looks like it is real;

Starlionblue wrote:

Armadillo1 wrote:

there are no irreplaceble documents, and actually bugs really can delayed evacuation, not so much as we espected by video but still.
but passengers was not briefed for emergency landing and some of them take they bugs.

"Bags". Bugs are something else.

I beg to differ!

When one is the Queen of England, one has "begs".

One also has people that carry one's begs around for you....

On a serious note;
I think we all owe Armadillo (and eielef) a huge vote of thanks for providing both their own views, and translations of Russian documents.
Clearly both they and google translate are struggling to present every word in clear English, but we should forgive them for that.

eielef wrote:

Starlionblue wrote:

It wasn't a non-issue. The cost of baggage handling a few decades ago is exactly why companies put those hold luggage pricing policies in place. So they could save money. We could go back to the practice from those days, but we'd have to accept higher ticket prices due to higher costs. And apparently Joe Public is not ok with that.

Do you really thing the airlines charge you because for them is very expensive the baggage handling fees? No. They do it because they can profit. Now, charge for hand luggage (same revenue), but make the other free... Overhead bin compartments are too packed these days, people is angry because THEIR bags don't fit, they don't want to put their bags under the seat in front of them (their feet doesn't fit the VERY tight pitch of airlines these days)... AND cargo holds are mostly empty.

Some months ago, in the airport in the town I was born, at the same time landed FlyBondi (B738 - Low Cost, luggage at a extra/expensive charge) and Aerolíneas Argentinas (B738, luggage at that moment free). Flybondi (LF160/189) used only one baggage cart, while Aerolineas Argentinas (LF160/170) used four full ones. As there are baggage belts, those in FlyBondi left in almost no time, those of AR waited some 10 minutes or less..
Now, AR charges for baggage (but is not a lowcost yet). And people puts everything on their handluggage. So boarding takes like forever, because people loves arguing with ground employees: I paid a very expensive ticket, I'm not flying in a LowCost, i'm not paying this shit. If it doesn't fit in the box (because it must fit in a box), I'm not paying a dime extra.

To be fair I'm not sure but I get the impression luggage handlers may be paid by volume and/or time. Cabin crew get paid the same regardless. Certainly no one pays the passengers to lug their bag on board.

Happy to be corrected if wrong.

You say, "I'm not paying for this shit", and that's exactly what is happening. You're not paying and thus you're not getting "premium service". The airline doesn't care about people who fly once and year with no loyalty. It cares about frequent flyers. That's where the money is.

Either way, that's all academic in this context. People will still be allowed hand luggage. And premium passengers will be allowed more hand luggage. Aviation is still ridiculously safe. Changing hand luggage rules will have no discernible effect on fatalities in aviation.

rilex037 wrote:

has this video has been posted here?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZWI2Dhq6r4

Its from inside the plane but different and way more scary from he one I saw before;

edit: The author is the same that posted this video, flight before the crash:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEs9exbTDqI&t=6s

We all said it was fake, but looks like it is real;

yes, it can be real.
also, people on russian forum made a mix by timeline
https://youtu.be/-kS2JCLwcWA

SheikhDjibouti wrote:

Starlionblue wrote:

Armadillo1 wrote:

there are no irreplaceble documents, and actually bugs really can delayed evacuation, not so much as we espected by video but still.
but passengers was not briefed for emergency landing and some of them take they bugs.

"Bags". Bugs are something else.

I beg to differ!

When one is the Queen of England, one has "begs".

One also has people that carry one's begs around for you....

On a serious note;
I think we all owe Armadillo (and eielef) a huge vote of thanks for providing both their own views, and translations of Russian documents.
Clearly both they and google translate are struggling to present every word in clear English, but we should forgive them for that.

Agreed completely. Apologies if I seemed blunt. That was not my intention. I wanted to help with an error that was both potentially misleading and unintentionally humorous.

SurlyBonds wrote:

Armadillo1 wrote:

People really took hand luggage from the shelves, but only because it was still impossible to go. “I had the documents there, it was I who grabbed them and, when the movement had already begun, I went ahead.”

One point that the translation misses: "documents" in Russian refers to internal passports, which are effectively a national identity card. They typically get issued twice in a Russian citizen's life. I've no idea what happens if you lose your internal passport, but I can't imagine it's easy to replace.

You go to the Police Station at your place of residence, fill out a form, pay a $25 fee for issuing a new passport and in 2 to 3 weeks you come to pick it up. It is a common misconception from the old days that it is difficult. Now eveything is digitalised and pretty easy to recover.

I've lost (misplaced) two passports and did this. No issue whatsoever.

rilex037 wrote:

has this video has been posted here?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZWI2Dhq6r4

Its from inside the plane but different and way more scary from he one I saw before;

edit: The author is the same that posted this video, flight before the crash:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEs9exbTDqI&t=6s

We all said it was fake, but looks like it is real;

It have been posted
I don't think people said it's not real, just that forum rules require links to video or other material be posted with description instead of simple link
Also, pretty sure the account that upload this video to YouTube is just an aggregator that reupload video from other websites?

Armadillo1 wrote:

rilex037 wrote:

has this video has been posted here?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZWI2Dhq6r4

Its from inside the plane but different and way more scary from he one I saw before;

edit: The author is the same that posted this video, flight before the crash:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEs9exbTDqI&t=6s

We all said it was fake, but looks like it is real;

yes, it can be real.
also, people on russian forum made a mix by timeline
https://youtu.be/-kS2JCLwcWA

That's very interesting to see the full timeline of captured events together like that. It shows what's captured in this modern digital age!

The engine was still pushing air for a long time, that is why the flames where so high and the smoke not completely black. The people in the back had no chance.

tail section was already on big big fire before stop. looks like frame itself already burning while plane stopped

eielef wrote:

The Sheremetyevo Airport website has published last night a good chronology of the fire and the fire crew response.
https://www.svo.aero/en/press_center/pr ... komandy-sh (English version on the link)

Well, somebody is very economical with the truth:

18:13 – The pilot reiterated to the air traffic controller about the loss of radio communication and, in addition, about the loss of automatic control of the aircraft.
18:14 – The Flight Director informed the Chief of Sheremetyevo Airport Shift about the return of flight SU1492. The cause of it, according to the pilots report: the radio communication failure and the loss of the automatic control of the aircraft; the approach and landing of the aircraft in normal mode.
18:30 – Landing on the runway 24L. After landing the fire has appeared.
18:31 – “Alarm” was declared by the Flight Director of Sheremetyevo Airport.
18:31 – Evacuation slides are released, the evacuation of passengers from the aircraft is carried out by the crew.

Either:

1) Pilots made multiple massive errors that resulted in 41 dead:
a - incorrectly diagnosed the problem (radio out, fbw out - this would still allow normal landing!)
b - if not a, improperly communicated their status and nature of the emergency to the control, they should declare emergency (Mayday!), which would REQUIRE firefighters to go to runway immediately!
c - if not a, and the only change in aircraft handling was transition to direct law, they terribly botched the landing and are directly at fault for the deaths

or

2) airport is lying through their teeth, and pilots did indeed declare emergency (they squawked 7700, which is EMERGENCY!) and airport botched the response.

Starlionblue wrote:

It wasn't a non-issue. The cost of baggage handling a few decades ago is exactly why companies put those hold luggage pricing policies in place. So they could save money. We could go back to the practice from those days, but we'd have to accept higher ticket prices due to higher costs. And apparently Joe Public is not ok with that.

No, not the direct cost, but the indirect cost in quicker turnaround time. But the idea at the time was that many passengers would travel light, because people would travel more often on short trips. What now see in the cabin is anything but light, and maybe the turnaround is quick but the boarding is not.

And in the 90s, perhaps rules for max size for the cabin luggage were the same, but basically everyone put all the non essential items in the checked luggage.In cabin women had handbags, and men a light bag, if any.

As for the safety, maybe the airlines should be forbidden to incentivize behaviour that decreases safety, that is large bags in cabin. Time to bring some of the regulation back, cabin luggage should consist only of things that occupy the space for single person. Separated compartments allocated per seat in overhead bins are a good idea to get back to reasonably sized cabin luggage. Cannot fit it in? Goes in the cargo hold.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5AfQDoYfPuE OUCH! This rules out fire before touching down, that was a hard bounce!

xmp125a wrote:

eielef wrote:

The Sheremetyevo Airport website has published last night a good chronology of the fire and the fire crew response.
https://www.svo.aero/en/press_center/pr ... komandy-sh (English version on the link)

Well, somebody is very economical with the truth:

18:13 – The pilot reiterated to the air traffic controller about the loss of radio communication and, in addition, about the loss of automatic control of the aircraft.
18:14 – The Flight Director informed the Chief of Sheremetyevo Airport Shift about the return of flight SU1492. The cause of it, according to the pilots report: the radio communication failure and the loss of the automatic control of the aircraft; the approach and landing of the aircraft in normal mode.
18:30 – Landing on the runway 24L. After landing the fire has appeared.
18:31 – “Alarm” was declared by the Flight Director of Sheremetyevo Airport.
18:31 – Evacuation slides are released, the evacuation of passengers from the aircraft is carried out by the crew.

Either:

1) Pilots made multiple massive errors that resulted in 41 dead:
a - incorrectly diagnosed the problem (radio out, fbw out - this would still allow normal landing!)
b - if not a, improperly communicated their status and nature of the emergency to the control, they should declare emergency (Mayday!), which would REQUIRE firefighters to go to runway immediately!
c - if not a, and the only change in aircraft handling was transition to direct law, they terribly botched the landing and are directly at fault for the deaths

or

2) airport is lying through their teeth, and pilots did indeed declare emergency (they squawked 7700, which is EMERGENCY!) and airport botched the response.

The airport version is, as far as we know, a factual account of known events at this point in time. The version you propose is speculation. The detailed sequence of factual events won't be known until the investigation at least comes out with a preliminary report.

xmp125a wrote:

Starlionblue wrote:

It wasn't a non-issue. The cost of baggage handling a few decades ago is exactly why companies put those hold luggage pricing policies in place. So they could save money. We could go back to the practice from those days, but we'd have to accept higher ticket prices due to higher costs. And apparently Joe Public is not ok with that.

No, not the direct cost, but the indirect cost in quicker turnaround time. But the idea at the time was that many passengers would travel light, because people would travel more often on short trips. What now see in the cabin is anything but light, and maybe the turnaround is quick but the boarding is not.

And in the 90s, perhaps rules for max size for the cabin luggage were the same, but basically everyone put all the non essential items in the checked luggage.In cabin women had handbags, and men a light bag, if any.

As for the safety, maybe the airlines should be forbidden to incentivize behaviour that decreases safety, that is large bags in cabin. Time to bring some of the regulation back, cabin luggage should consist only of things that occupy the space for single person. Separated compartments allocated per seat in overhead bins are a good idea to get back to reasonably sized cabin luggage. Cannot fit it in? Goes in the cargo hold.

What's the point, though? For a one in a billion event? I'm happy to take that risk. There are plenty of other ways to make aviation safer other than draconian hand baggage regulations, no matter how infuriating and contributory to innocent deaths the people who block evacuations are.

Will people die in accidents in the future? Most definitely. Is imposing tougher hand baggage regulations the answer? IMHO no. The added inconvenience on every single flight that arrives safely just isn't worth it. There are several other avenues towards increased safety to develop beforehand, without inconveniencing the travelling public, and which give more bang for the buck.

What prevents aircrafts from having a central locking mechanism for overhead luggage which can be activated once descent begins and released open once at parking gate.

Starlionblue wrote:

It's not being economical with events. The airport version is seemingly a factual account of known events. The version you propose is speculation. The detailed sequence of factual events won't be known until the investigation at least comes out with a preliminary report.

Somebody is economical with truth. And yes, without speculation there would not be this forum, so what's your point? Additionally, leaks paint a troubling picture for the pilots:

"Yevdokimov said the plane had lost communications and autopilot controls after the lightning strike." https://abcnews.go.com/International/in ... d=62872768

From losing all electricity and avionics, we came to the point where only radio and autopilot were damaged...

Starlionblue wrote:

What's the point, though? For a one in a billion event? I'm happy to take that risk.

The risk is not only yours, it is heavily influenced by presence or absence of perhaps even a few idiots who could block evacuation for the rest of the passengers, like the one Dmitry Khlebushkin. And, I don't believe security checks at the airport are nearly as effective as when most of the luggage went into the hold, because agents are under time pressure. And it really does not change much for the airlines. Checked luggage can still be paid, just that if you bring oversized bag that would infringe upon other people space, you need to check it and pay.

And finally, the issue is not that much the regulations regarding the luggage, but absolute ignorance of airlines own rules regarding this. Only once in the past 20 years I've seen the checkin agent asking the customer to put their bag in the airline's measuring device, even most of the times, people bring much larger bags with themselves. Simply, existing rules are not enforced and this is really bad.

ikarlson wrote:

eielef wrote:

The Sheremetyevo Airport website has published last night a good chronology of the fire and the fire crew response.
https://www.svo.aero/en/press_center/pr ... komandy-sh (English version on the link)

I stopped reading after Airport fire brigades and rescue teams arrived at the scene in 1 minute. cause its a LIE! at least two minutes it was before first firefighters arrived, here is a video of it

https://twitter.com/NeTVRussia/status/1 ... h6_TaVJe00

From the moment that plane comes to a stop it took 95-100 sec for the first fire brigade to start to put water(?) on the fire. They were at the scene 10 sec before. We don't know when they got the alarm. Anyways 1-2 minutes from the alarm was good and well inside regulatory max 3 minutes.

xmp125a wrote:

Starlionblue wrote:

It's not being economical with events. The airport version is seemingly a factual account of known events. The version you propose is speculation. The detailed sequence of factual events won't be known until the investigation at least comes out with a preliminary report.

Somebody is economical with truth. And yes, without speculation there would not be this forum, so what's your point? Additionally, leaks paint a troubling picture for the pilots:

"Yevdokimov said the plane had lost communications and autopilot controls after the lightning strike." https://abcnews.go.com/International/in ... d=62872768

From losing all electricity and avionics, we came to the point where only radio and autopilot were damaged...

Starlionblue wrote:

What's the point, though? For a one in a billion event? I'm happy to take that risk.

The risk is not only yours, it is heavily influenced by presence or absence of perhaps even a few idiots who could block evacuation for the rest of the passengers, like the one Dmitry Khlebushkin.

The risk is still infinitesimal for any given trip. For "this guy" to block your evacuation you have to have an evacuation in the first place. In my entire career as a pilot, the chance of me seeing an evacuation is basically nil. And I fly way more than the average passenger.

THS214 wrote:

ikarlson wrote:

eielef wrote:

The Sheremetyevo Airport website has published last night a good chronology of the fire and the fire crew response.
https://www.svo.aero/en/press_center/pr ... komandy-sh (English version on the link)

I stopped reading after Airport fire brigades and rescue teams arrived at the scene in 1 minute. cause its a LIE! at least two minutes it was before first firefighters arrived, here is a video of it

https://twitter.com/NeTVRussia/status/1 ... h6_TaVJe00

From the moment that plane comes to a stop it took 95-100 sec for the first fire brigade to start to put water(?) on the fire. They were at the scene 10 sec before. We don't know when they got the alarm. Anyways 1-2 minutes from the alarm was good and well inside regulatory max 3 minutes.

Then the pilots are at fault, they should not attempt such hard landing without declaring Mayday immediately when deciding to return to the airport, and fire brigade would be waiting there.

xmp125a wrote:

THS214 wrote:

ikarlson wrote:

I stopped reading after Airport fire brigades and rescue teams arrived at the scene in 1 minute. cause its a LIE! at least two minutes it was before first firefighters arrived, here is a video of it

https://twitter.com/NeTVRussia/status/1 ... h6_TaVJe00

From the moment that plane comes to a stop it took 95-100 sec for the first fire brigade to start to put water(?) on the fire. They were at the scene 10 sec before. We don't know when they got the alarm. Anyways 1-2 minutes from the alarm was good and well inside regulatory max 3 minutes.

Then the pilots are at fault, they should not attempt such hard landing without declaring Mayday immediately when deciding to return to the airport, and fire brigade would be waiting there.

I am fairly certain that the pilots did not intend to bounce the landing and come down hard. You are saying they were "at fault" at a time when we know almost nothing about what happened.

The order of priority is "aviate, navigate, communicate". If the pilots were busy aviating, calling mayday was not a priority.

Starlionblue wrote:

xmp125a wrote:

THS214 wrote:

From the moment that plane comes to a stop it took 95-100 sec for the first fire brigade to start to put water(?) on the fire. They were at the scene 10 sec before. We don't know when they got the alarm. Anyways 1-2 minutes from the alarm was good and well inside regulatory max 3 minutes.

Then the pilots are at fault, they should not attempt such hard landing without declaring Mayday immediately when deciding to return to the airport, and fire brigade would be waiting there.

I am fairly certain that the pilots did not intend to bounce the landing and come down hard. You are saying they were "at fault" at a time when we know almost nothing about what happened.

The order of priority is "aviate, navigate, communicate". If the pilots were busy aviating, calling mayday was not a priority.

You took the words right out of my mouth. I was going to say "Aviate, Navigate, Communicate". It's very possible there was pilot error or mishandling of the situation. But many here are making cast iron decisions that the pilots are at fault, when the full details are still not yet known. It's a bit presumptious, in my opinion.

I've been trying to stay out of the handbaggage argument, but it persists. While I don't condone anyone removing handbaggage in an emergency, you can't ignore the irrational way of thinking that comes over people in frightening situations. It's not as simple as them simply deciding they want their baggage, and to hell with those behind them. To simplify it to this is narrowminded. People to not always act logically in crisis situations, and that can't be ignored.
The issue is not about baggage, but about human behaviour. We already have plenty of ludicrous micro-regulation that doesn't add anything (LAGS anyone) in this industry, we don't need more. Banning hand luggage isn't feasible. Locking overhead lockers merely creates another hazard of people trying in vain to open them. To resolve the potential problem you need to look at how to influence human behaviour.

drajoshi wrote:

What prevents aircrafts from having a central locking mechanism for overhead luggage which can be activated once descent begins and released open once at parking gate.

Expense, weight, maintenance, additional certification... etc. etc.

I couldn't locate the post, so copied and pasted what I wanted to Quote.
"cc2314 wrote:
Muscle memory is a term used for the rebound effect a previously trained person gets when they return to the gym.
The brain is the issue here,any ingrained patterns of behavior in this situation should be ignored simply by the smell of smoke.".

In an earlier post, I referenced my oldest brother who is a fire fighter. As a routine for them, they watch video's of various fires and the outcomes of those fires. We were discussing a fire that had occurred and the number of people that had died in it. He said to me, "It is sad, so many folks died in that fire. Many of them needlessly." I asked him what caused that and his response amazed me. "Herd instinct kicks in and we want to leave via the same route we went in. Most of the ones who died, were trying to get to the door they came through to get into the building and were trampled to death. Sadly, for many of them, there was a fully functioning emergency exit door just a few feet from them and it was never opened till the fire department opened it." He said, another aspect of human nature and the herd instinct is we want to leave with what we cam in with. All of our belongings. Those things are important to us.

On this plane, obviously the rear exits were blocked by fire and unusable. This left only the front doors accessible. That said, the herd instinct kicked in still for many of them and they needed to exit the way they came in and with their belongings. In this case, no other doors were available but the front doors. So, it came down to belongings.

So, to CC2314's comment, it is to a great degree muscle memory and the herd instinct kicking in.

Starlionblue wrote:

xmp125a wrote:

THS214 wrote:

From the moment that plane comes to a stop it took 95-100 sec for the first fire brigade to start to put water(?) on the fire. They were at the scene 10 sec before. We don't know when they got the alarm. Anyways 1-2 minutes from the alarm was good and well inside regulatory max 3 minutes.

Then the pilots are at fault, they should not attempt such hard landing without declaring Mayday immediately when deciding to return to the airport, and fire brigade would be waiting there.

I am fairly certain that the pilots did not intend to bounce the landing and come down hard. You are saying they were "at fault" at a time when we know almost nothing about what happened.

The order of priority is "aviate, navigate, communicate". If the pilots were busy aviating, calling mayday was not a priority.

They called mayday by transponder and were able to use radios but needed to reset them in several times.

We don't know when fire brigade was noticed and we don't know where they were at the moment of touchdown.

If the fire equipment was called or not before landing there must have been a reason to it. Lets just wait and we will get the answers.

TMccrury wrote:

I couldn't locate the post, so copied and pasted what I wanted to Quote.
"cc2314 wrote:
Muscle memory is a term used for the rebound effect a previously trained person gets when they return to the gym.
The brain is the issue here,any ingrained patterns of behavior in this situation should be ignored simply by the smell of smoke.".

In an earlier post, I referenced my oldest brother who is a fire fighter. As a routine for them, they watch video's of various fires and the outcomes of those fires. We were discussing a fire that had occurred and the number of people that had died in it. He said to me, "It is sad, so many folks died in that fire. Many of them needlessly." I asked him what caused that and his response amazed me. "Herd instinct kicks in and we want to leave via the same route we went in. Most of the ones who died, were trying to get to the door they came through to get into the building and were trampled to death. Sadly, for many of them, there was a fully functioning emergency exit door just a few feet from them and it was never opened till the fire department opened it." He said, another aspect of human nature and the herd instinct is we want to leave with what we cam in with. All of our belongings. Those things are important to us.

On this plane, obviously the rear exits were blocked by fire and unusable. This left only the front doors accessible. That said, the herd instinct kicked in still for many of them and they needed to exit the way they came in and with their belongings. In this case, no other doors were available but the front doors. So, it came down to belongings.

So, to CC2314's comment, it is to a great degree muscle memory and the herd instinct kicking in.

Your brother clearly has listened during ground school. I'm sure that if you ask were to find kids inside when they go into a house on fire he would say under beds and in closets.

I think it is not fair to blame that one passenger who had his belongings with him and then asking refund for the plane ticket. That is one way to act when in shock.

Many of the people in the back froze when being in a fireball. Some went to the rear doors. It is surprising to most people how irrational we can be when we get into a difficult situation.

What would happen if the pilot asked for emergency crew, and it the end, the landing was routine and nothing bad happened, therefore fire fighters are not needed? In another forum they asked if the pilots or the airline would receive a fine for having called a emergency when it wasn't needed.

Starlionblue wrote:

... Certainly no one pays the passengers to lug their bag on board.

well, not getting paid, but ..
Aeroflot used to operate rural routes with "lug your bags into the belly and go up to the passenger deck."

see:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilyushin_ ... %22_system

eielef wrote:

What would happen if the pilot asked for emergency crew, and it the end, the landing was routine and nothing bad happened, therefore fire fighters are not needed? In another forum they asked if the pilots or the airline would receive a fine for having called a emergency when it wasn't needed.

Mostly fire departments consider it as a good exercise. After all its real world situation. Secondly fire fighters think its better to call them when in the end they are not needed than not calling them when they are needed. Pilots and ATC don't call fire fighters for no reason. The whole idea of fining them is ridiculous as it would lead to not call fire fighters when needed. Better be safe than sorry.

ikarlson wrote:

eielef wrote:

The Sheremetyevo Airport website has published last night a good chronology of the fire and the fire crew response.
https://www.svo.aero/en/press_center/pr ... komandy-sh (English version on the link)

I stopped reading after Airport fire brigades and rescue teams arrived at the scene in 1 minute. cause its a LIE! at least two minutes it was before first firefighters arrived, here is a video of it

https://twitter.com/NeTVRussia/status/1 ... h6_TaVJe00

A large organization in Russia.... Lied?

Unheard of!

One of the many problems with Russia, is you have to assume that much fo the information you are receiving are lies, not simply bad information, but intentional acts to mislead.

eielef wrote:

What would happen if the pilot asked for emergency crew, and it the end, the landing was routine and nothing bad happened, therefore fire fighters are not needed? In another forum they asked if the pilots or the airline would receive a fine for having called a emergency when it wasn't needed.

I don't know how it is in Russia, but in the US, it would be a non-event. Probably once a week at KCLT I see the the CFR trucks out to meet a landing airliner because the flight crew reported some malfunction and wanted the trucks standing by. It could be an indication of a hydraulic or electrical problem that might cause an issue on landing - just last week I saw an A330 come in with an indication of inop nose wheel steering.. In almost every case, the plane landed safely and the trucks escorted them to the ramp. Only time I saw when that didn't happen was a plane with some blown tires. He stopped on the runway, stair trucks and buses took the passengers away, and the plane was towed to the maintenance hangar, all under the watchful eyes of the CFR crew.

Moose135 wrote:

eielef wrote:

In another forum they asked if the pilots or the airline would receive a fine for having called a emergency when it wasn't needed.

I don't know how it is in Russia, but in the US, it would be a non-event. Probably once a week at KCLT I see the the CFR trucks out to meet a landing airliner because the flight crew reported some malfunction and wanted the trucks standing by.

I don’t know either but I would be very surprised if there is such a „fine“ or payment. The CFR truck drivers need regular training in anyway so it even makes sense to have some wrong alerts.

ikarlson wrote:

eielef wrote:

The Sheremetyevo Airport website has published last night a good chronology of the fire and the fire crew response.
https://www.svo.aero/en/press_center/pr ... komandy-sh (English version on the link)

I stopped reading after Airport fire brigades and rescue teams arrived at the scene in 1 minute. cause its a LIE! at least two minutes it was before first firefighters arrived, here is a video of it

https://twitter.com/NeTVRussia/status/1 ... h6_TaVJe00

Okay, so let's say it was 2 minutes. Let's even add an additional minute, and make it 3 minutes! That's still a pretty impressive response in my book. Even had they been there 30 seconds after, I do not think it would have made much of a difference in the outcome. That fire was insane, and I am pretty sure the smoke will be the major factor in the loss of life.

And the video is agonizing!! I mean, I can't tell you how many times I screamed in my mind about the fire response. But, then I had to account for getting the vehicle in drive, and getting the vehicle to the scene. Those trucks dont go from zero to 60 in 3 seconds.

Now I wonder if smoke masks might be a good safety tool to put in seatbacks? I know, crazy idea. But, if those passengers had smoke masks, how many lives could have been saved? I am shocked at how deadly a fire on a plane can be, and how many people are consumed by smoke. God, those poor passengers.

https://i1.wp.com/www.util21.ro/relaxar ... -100-i.jpg

https://airwaysmag.com/wp-content/uploa ... -MAX-4.jpg

Same fuselage cross section, 60 years apart. Top picture is nothing more than a hat and coat rack.

Seeing some of the bag sizes being dragged off the plane was shocking. If the general travelling public insists on bringing half of their worldly possessions on a plane, then there should be a limit to access. Diaper bag or laptop? It should fit under the seat. I make it a rule to have my wallet, cellphone, and passport on me... the rest is not important. PERIOD.

Re evacuation / hand luggage:
How about
1) Mandating that a disposable Essentials Bag (essentially a marked mid-sized zip loc bag) be provided in each seat back pocket.
2) As part of the safety briefing, stating "We recommend you place essential items such as your passport, wallet and phone in the Essentials Bag in the seat back pocket. We remind you that in the unlikely event of an evacuation, you may only take the Essentials Bag from the seat pocket with you."
Maybe an easy and effective solution?

To all the people who deny the fact that the recovery of hand luggage did not halt evacuation, please check the following report of news (in Russian)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=In5u_tWKU-8
a relative of a survivor tells (according to the correspondent, some victims are still too traumatized to talk to the media [and thus, by default, communicate only with their near ones]):
"people started recovering their items, and a jam was formed"
start with 3:07
Of course, any passenger who took something with them will be denying this fact, but...
We have this testimony, and I can't see why this is not truthful

Starlionblue wrote:

AVB wrote:

With the wings and engines basically intact, why did only the rear fuselage burn? There’s no fuel in the rear fuselage so what caught alight? Was there a fire already ragging in the cargo hold prior to landing?

My hypothesis: Wing tanks punctured by the landing gear on impact. Massive fuel leak. Since the plane was still moving forward fuel leaked out behind the wing, not forward. Thus the fire was at the rear, not at the front.

I believe the ignition source was likely the engines? While they were still producing power when the fire erupted, it fanned those flames to the rear. If you look at some of the videos, those engines ran for a good 30 seconds plus. Just a horrible tragedy. I could be wrong about the engines, but that is what it looks like to me.

rikkus67 wrote:

https://i1.wp.com/www.util21.ro/relaxare/poze/avioane/boeing-707-100-i.jpg

https://airwaysmag.com/wp-content/uploa ... -MAX-4.jpg

Same fuselage cross section, 60 years apart. Top picture is nothing more than a hat and coat rack.

Seeing some of the bag sizes being dragged off the plane was shocking. If the general travelling public insists on bringing half of their worldly possessions on a plane, then there should be a limit to access. Diaper bag or laptop? It should fit under the seat. I make it a rule to have my wallet, cellphone, and passport on me... the rest is not important. PERIOD.

Yep. Airline travel was exponentially more expensive. When you boarded, the stewardess (not flight attendant), took your coat and larger bag if you had one and stowed them for you. They offered newspapers and drinks to everyone. There were more per pax and load factors were sometimes 50% so you had plenty of room.

Bags were checked for free. When you drove up, someone would help take your 5 pieces of hard sided free luggage from your car. You might never touch it again until the other side when someone helped load it into your car or taxi.

We don't live in those times anymore.

eielef wrote:

What would happen if the pilot asked for emergency crew, and it the end, the landing was routine and nothing bad happened, therefore fire fighters are not needed? In another forum they asked if the pilots or the airline would receive a fine for having called a emergency when it wasn't needed.

What would happen? The firefighters would be really glad nothing happened. If the same pilot calls them ten times a month, they'd persuade him/her to think before calling them. It's not that it costs a lot of money to have the ARFF on stand-by, some diesel and some normal wear on the engines, that's all. They're already there and get payed no matter what. If you would start calculating the total cost of ARFF and charge the airlines for every occurrence (sum of ops divided by number of occurrences), it would amount to horrendous sums for every occasion and pilots wouldn't use them when in just some doubt. If in doubt, say so! "Ok, we're unsure if we need to have ARFF on stand-by, but this is the situation...". Uneless they're really busy with something like a practice or helping someone from a stuck elevator, they'll be by the runway side in 90 secs, just to be able to use the sirens (yes, most ARFF personnel are boys with big toys).

Regarding this incident, they were NOT there in one minute from the fire broke out. The aircraft was stationary for more than a minute before the first truck arrived (no it's not hidden behind the flames in all videos). If that first truck would have performed some PROPER fire fighting, perhaps the outcome would have been slightly improved, but the real problem is the time from landing following an EMERGENCY (=sqawk 7700) to first truck on scene. If ATC receives a 7700 transponder code, hearing from the pilots something resembling "manoeuvring problems" and words like "lightning strike" even combined with radio problems, what ATC controller in their right mind would NOT push that big red button they all have???

Then again, in this particular accident it may have been too late for some (or even most) anyway. The intensity of the fire from landing to full stop was massive and who knows what happened to the hull during touchdown. If the hull was not breached, a proper and swift ARFF response would have made a difference. If there was a breach, the interior would catch fire instantly and start to spread, emitting gases that would choke lots of people in little time.

This is my favourite part from the timeline presented by the ruskis:

18:32 – Arrival of the second fire brigade of the ARFF, rescue and evacuation of passengers and crew members by the ARFF teams.

Where is the video from 18:32 showing firefighters entering the aircraft to rescue people? Please post a link

/Fredrik