xmp125a
Posts: 196
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2019 6:38 pm

Re: Updated: Aeroflot 1492 SSJ100 fire at Moscow (SVO) - 40+ confirmed dead

Wed May 08, 2019 4:34 pm

F9Animal wrote:
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.


ICAO rules (recommendations) specify 3 minute max response time and 4 minutes from notification to 50% flow of water or foam (i.e. half of the equipment should be spraying after 4 minutes of receiving the alert).

That's why fire trucks are almost always at the runway when pilot declares emergency - usually it takes much more than 4 minutes from emergency declaration to landing and the only delay is the time they need from where they are on the runway to actual plane position, i.e. if they miscalculated the distance the plane needs to stop.
 
User avatar
FredrikHAD
Posts: 388
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2015 9:44 pm

Re: Updated: Aeroflot 1492 SSJ100 fire at Moscow (SVO) - 40+ confirmed dead

Wed May 08, 2019 4:37 pm

F9Animal wrote:
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.

In the 80's and 90's, ARFF rules in Europe mandated a 90 second response time (alarm to foam spraying on the fuselage) if (!) the aircraft was within the runway area. At least Arlanda and some larger Swedish airports had fast response vehicles with limited water and foam supplies, but they could initiate the fire fighting effort and the big trucks took over some 30 seconds after the fast response vehicle arrived. Today's rules are a lot slacker than they used to be.

xmp125a wrote:
That's why fire trucks are almost always at the runway when pilot declares emergency - usually it takes much more than 4 minutes from emergency declaration to landing and the only delay is the time they need from where they are on the runway to actual plane position, i.e. if they miscalculated the distance the plane needs to stop.

I'm sure you're aware that it's impossible to calculate where the aircraft will stop, and the fire trucks are generally spread along the intended runway. Often you can predict if the landing will be short (engine problems) or long (no flaps) and you will deploy the trucks accordingly. As a consequence, some trucks will (and should be) far away from the aircraft when it comes to rest.

/Fredrik
Last edited by FredrikHAD on Wed May 08, 2019 4:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
xmp125a
Posts: 196
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2019 6:38 pm

Re: Updated: Aeroflot 1492 SSJ100 fire at Moscow (SVO) - 40+ confirmed dead

Wed May 08, 2019 4:37 pm

FredrikHAD wrote:
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???


EXACTLY. This is the best summary why we are questioning the response of emergency services. Squawk 7700 was done 5 minutes before landing, at that moment boys should rush to their toys and drive to the runway, especially since it was preceeded by 7600, so ATC must assume no further communication will be possible.
 
eielef
Posts: 685
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 4:07 am

Re: Updated: Aeroflot 1492 SSJ100 fire at Moscow (SVO) - 40+ confirmed dead

Wed May 08, 2019 4:42 pm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-kS2JCL ... e=youtu.be
Check this video, posted earlier, the best so far.
At 04:25 (top-right of the screen) you see two people, a lady with a handbag, a man with a jacket.
At 04:28 (centre of the screen) you see a bold man (jeans, black tshirt) with a large bag.
At 06:04, top-left screen, you can see one piece of hand luggage next to a lady. Who does it belong? It is not to the lady. I doubt it belongs to any of crew members. Maybe to the person who is making the video?
At 06:24 a bold male with an orange backpack.
At 06:53 a young lady dressed in black with a white bag.

So, at least 6 people spotted just in one video, each at least with one item of hand luggage. Everyone panicked in the same way? I believe crew should enforce and remind to everyone not to take it down in the case of an emergency evacuation.
Is not just it could jam an emergency door. Those specially over the wings, that are much smaller than those in the doors of the plane, could easily get jammed with a piece of luggage. But is mostly because of the amount of seconds lost trying to retrieve an item of the overhead bins or from under the seat, that could have moved on impact, and that is never as important as saving your and many other lives...
 
xmp125a
Posts: 196
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2019 6:38 pm

Re: Updated: Aeroflot 1492 SSJ100 fire at Moscow (SVO) - 40+ confirmed dead

Wed May 08, 2019 4:46 pm

FredrikHAD wrote:
I'm sure you're aware that it's impossible to calculate where the aircraft will stop, and the fire trucks are generally spread along the intended runway. Often you can predict if the landing will be short (engine problems) or long (no flaps) and you will deploy the trucks accordingly. As a consequence, some trucks will (and should be) far away from the aircraft when it comes to rest.


Of course, I did not know that the strategy is to spread trucks along the runway, but with runways of 4 km, that makes perfect sense, as a truck at 100 km/h needs 2 minutes to drive it from one end to another.
 
eielef
Posts: 685
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 4:07 am

Re: Updated: Aeroflot 1492 SSJ100 fire at Moscow (SVO) - 40+ confirmed dead

Wed May 08, 2019 4:54 pm

ikramerica wrote:
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.


Bags were checked for free in most airlines outside the US just 4 years ago. And they still made profit... LH, AF, KL, BA, IB, OS, AZ... It was free everywhere here in Europe. Also was food (for food, maybe make it 10 years ago). Aviation always finds a crisis (for instance, high fuel costs) to put a restriction to passengers, or to ban something, or to charge something else, but then forget to take it out. Is like taxes in a country. Not many years ago, changing a ticket at the check in counter for an earlier flight was something appreciated by the airline staff. You flew earlier, on an empty seat. Your seat can be sell again. And you get home earlier. A win-win situation for the airline and the passenger. Now, there are so many fines, restrictions, surcharges, fare codes, that is close to impossible. The time you spend on the phone trying to have it fixed makes it simpler to wait for your original flight...

My father, back in the 90s, flew 4 times a week domestic in Argentina (TUC-AEP-TUC-COR-TUC), and knew the schedule by heart (5 flights a day to AEP) to arrive earlier to ask to change to an earlier flight. He never paid for it. There was no status, nothing, in those days. Sure, in TUC they knew him (they knew me at one point) because the airline staff is no more than 10 people.

During times of economical hardship in a country, the government may rise the taxes. But when the crisis is over, they forget to bring taxes down to the previous level. At least so it's been in Argentina. VAT of 21% was risen on 1995 economical crisis. Almost 25 years later, is still 21% because of new laws each year saying: the crisis is not over (maybe is a new crisis every year, I'm not sure, but we keep paying an emergency tax 25 years later).
 
User avatar
rikkus67
Posts: 1269
Joined: Fri Jun 09, 2000 11:34 am

Re: Updated: Aeroflot 1492 SSJ100 fire at Moscow (SVO) - 40+ confirmed dead

Wed May 08, 2019 5:20 pm

PlaneInsomniac wrote:
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?



...if it would be adhered to. Entitlement be damned.
AC.WA.CP.DL.RW.CO.WG.WJ.WN.KI.FL.SK.ACL.UA.US.F9
 
konrad
Posts: 557
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2002 3:54 am

Re: Updated: Aeroflot 1492 SSJ100 fire at Moscow (SVO) - 40+ confirmed dead

Wed May 08, 2019 6:56 pm

I am not sure if this was posted here:
http://ren.tv/novosti/2019-05-07/samole ... -ssj-100-s
(if already posted and discussed before please delete)

This is a transcript of the SU1492 communication with ATC (or at least parts of it) reported by a Russian TV station (in Russian).
Some observations after a first quick reading:
- no problems in communication, the exchange makes it a routine return to the airport due to an emergency
- the approach was ILS which means that avionics and automated flight control was not lost
- the pilot asked for emergency services and the controller confirmed emergency services on the runway
 
tu204
Posts: 1824
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 12:36 am

Re: Updated: Aeroflot 1492 SSJ100 fire at Moscow (SVO) - 40+ confirmed dead

Wed May 08, 2019 7:05 pm

xmp125a wrote:
FredrikHAD wrote:
I'm sure you're aware that it's impossible to calculate where the aircraft will stop, and the fire trucks are generally spread along the intended runway. Often you can predict if the landing will be short (engine problems) or long (no flaps) and you will deploy the trucks accordingly. As a consequence, some trucks will (and should be) far away from the aircraft when it comes to rest.


Of course, I did not know that the strategy is to spread trucks along the runway, but with runways of 4 km, that makes perfect sense, as a truck at 100 km/h needs 2 minutes to drive it from one end to another.


That is a good point actually. I am not impressed with the response of the Rescue Services, but perhaps they were at the start of the runway hence the minute+ response time?

Would be good to see more security camera footage to see where they all were and where they came from.

They were obviously sitting in the trucks somewhere.
I do not dream about movie stars, they must dream about me for I am real and they are not. - Alexander Popov
 
User avatar
remcor
Posts: 366
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2006 9:25 am

Re: Updated: Aeroflot 1492 SSJ100 fire at Moscow (SVO) - 40+ confirmed dead

Wed May 08, 2019 9:22 pm

BerenErchamion wrote:
remcor wrote:
What if it was made illegal to bring bags down an inflated slide, and this was mentioned as part of the cabin safely announcement? Human behavior is strange, people hearing this over and over might cause it to sink in, may cause people to want to avoid the shame of being charged criminally for this, may cause people to make peace with losing their belongings.


Are panicking people particularly known for considering the long-term consequences of their panicking as they're panicking?

Not doing something because you don't want to get punished for it is a rational response, sure--but so is leaving your bags on board as you evacuate an airplane. The problem is that panicking people, by definition, are, through no fault of their own, *not* responding to the situation rationally. So it's not clear to me how something predicated on people making a rational decision is going to effect any behavioral change here.

Best to try to design systems that minimize the opportunity for panicking people to impede the safety of themselves and others (part of which, of course, includes minimizing to the extent feasible the likelihood of such scenarios arising in the first place).


Maybe, but I'd argue if you're truly panicking you wouldn't grab your luggage - I'm sure the people in the back of the plane weren't. We're told each time we board a plane that it's illegal to disable smoke detectors, and all of us know this because we've heard it dozens of times. So maybe hearing "it is unlawful for you to retrieve or bring any luggage down an escape slide" over-and-over might put a mental bookmark in people.
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 19216
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

Re: Updated: Aeroflot 1492 SSJ100 fire at Moscow (SVO) - 40+ confirmed dead

Wed May 08, 2019 11:17 pm

THS214 wrote:
Starlionblue wrote:
xmp125a wrote:

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.


Interesting about the radio reset. Speculation but at some point, the pilots might have decided to leave the radios alone so they could focus on the approach and landing. The radios are not essential.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
Indy
Posts: 4834
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 1:37 pm

Re: Updated: Aeroflot 1492 SSJ100 fire at Moscow (SVO) - 40+ confirmed dead

Thu May 09, 2019 12:25 am

ZKCIF wrote:
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


There is a short video shot from the ground outside of the plane and there are clearly at least two large bags that would have been in an overhead bin. So clearly this happened. There is no denying it now. Video evidence exists. Not to mention you can hear bins being opened in another video.

Edit: Yeah you can see it in multiple spots in your video.
Indy = Indianapolis and not Independence Air
 
F9Animal
Posts: 4191
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2004 7:13 am

Re: Updated: Aeroflot 1492 SSJ100 fire at Moscow (SVO) - 40+ confirmed dead

Thu May 09, 2019 2:14 am

remcor wrote:
BerenErchamion wrote:
remcor wrote:
What if it was made illegal to bring bags down an inflated slide, and this was mentioned as part of the cabin safely announcement? Human behavior is strange, people hearing this over and over might cause it to sink in, may cause people to want to avoid the shame of being charged criminally for this, may cause people to make peace with losing their belongings.


Are panicking people particularly known for considering the long-term consequences of their panicking as they're panicking?

Not doing something because you don't want to get punished for it is a rational response, sure--but so is leaving your bags on board as you evacuate an airplane. The problem is that panicking people, by definition, are, through no fault of their own, *not* responding to the situation rationally. So it's not clear to me how something predicated on people making a rational decision is going to effect any behavioral change here.

Best to try to design systems that minimize the opportunity for panicking people to impede the safety of themselves and others (part of which, of course, includes minimizing to the extent feasible the likelihood of such scenarios arising in the first place).


Maybe, but I'd argue if you're truly panicking you wouldn't grab your luggage - I'm sure the people in the back of the plane weren't. We're told each time we board a plane that it's illegal to disable smoke detectors, and all of us know this because we've heard it dozens of times. So maybe hearing "it is unlawful for you to retrieve or bring any luggage down an escape slide" over-and-over might put a mental bookmark in people.


I will never forget the time I was a kid flying on a Republic DC-9. There was a horrible sound coming from the back of the plane. Apparently a guy went into the bathroom and lit a cigarette. Then he tried to break the smoke detector by bashing it with his shoe! If I recall, he was arrested for it.

I think it should be in every safety announcement that carry on bags remain in the event of a need to evacuate the plane.
I Am A Different Animal!!
 
eielef
Posts: 685
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 4:07 am

Re: Updated: Aeroflot 1492 SSJ100 fire at Moscow (SVO) - 40+ confirmed dead

Thu May 09, 2019 8:59 am

Often after a plan crash, airlines change the flight number of their following flights. I'm not sure why.
But Aeroflot still operates the daily SU1492, route SVO-MMK, that departs at 17:50 and lands at 20:35.
I'm not sure why they haven't change the flight number, but they have changed the aircraft operating the flight since Sunday.
Monday they used a B738 while Tuesday and Wednesday was an A320...
 
Armadillo1
Posts: 178
Joined: Thu Apr 20, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: Updated: Aeroflot 1492 SSJ100 fire at Moscow (SVO) - 40+ confirmed dead

Thu May 09, 2019 9:04 am

ZKCIF wrote:
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

this woman is not survivor, but relative, and she sayd what rumors shed heard around.
 
User avatar
SomebodyInTLS
Posts: 1627
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 12:31 pm

Re: Updated: Aeroflot 1492 SSJ100 fire at Moscow (SVO) - 40+ confirmed dead

Thu May 09, 2019 11:56 am

F9Animal wrote:
I think it should be in every safety announcement that carry on bags remain in the event of a need to evacuate the plane.


Not picking on you, but it already is on flights I board these days - the fact you say this maybe shows it doesn't work.

I've noticed they've been getting more emphatic about it the last year or so (my last flight on KLM or EasyJet stated something like "no baggage may be taken with you, do NOT attempt to remove baggage from the overhead lockers").

Maybe instead of just having it in the announcement they need to make a bigger deal about it during the video or crew demonstrations... Like crew pointing at the overheads and shaking their heads, big red crosses flashing over the overheads in the video, video of some guy trying to open a locker and getting trampled by the rest of the passengers... heh heh.
"As with most things related to aircraft design, it's all about the trade-offs and much more nuanced than A.net likes to make out."
 
User avatar
N14AZ
Posts: 3642
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 10:19 pm

Re: Updated: Aeroflot 1492 SSJ100 fire at Moscow (SVO) - 40+ confirmed dead

Thu May 09, 2019 12:43 pm

SomebodyInTLS wrote:
F9Animal wrote:
I think it should be in every safety announcement that carry on bags remain in the event of a need to evacuate the plane.

Maybe instead of just having it in the announcement they need to make a bigger deal about it during the video or crew demonstrations... Like crew pointing at the overheads and shaking their heads, big red crosses flashing over the overheads in the video, video of some guy trying to open a locker and getting trampled by the rest of the passengers... heh heh.

I am really not trying to get off-topic but I would like to add that this is what really concerns me about the latest safety videos I saw on my last two trips: TK in April and TG in March.

They have nothing to do with aircraft safety, IMHO. It might be big fun to watch these LEGO toys (TK) and this lunatic young woman in the jungle (TG) but just imagine these airlines would have a similar crash as this one here. I guess people would quickly ask why do you concentrate on the show and all the jokes in your videos and not on procedures that could save lives, in case of an emergency.
 
User avatar
Finn350
Posts: 1546
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 4:57 am

Re: Updated: Aeroflot 1492 SSJ100 fire at Moscow (SVO) - 40+ confirmed dead

Thu May 09, 2019 12:49 pm

FredrikHAD wrote:
F9Animal wrote:
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.

In the 80's and 90's, ARFF rules in Europe mandated a 90 second response time (alarm to foam spraying on the fuselage) if (!) the aircraft was within the runway area. At least Arlanda and some larger Swedish airports had fast response vehicles with limited water and foam supplies, but they could initiate the fire fighting effort and the big trucks took over some 30 seconds after the fast response vehicle arrived. Today's rules are a lot slacker than they used to be.


A 90 second response time sounds next to impossible considering runway lengths and that response time includes the time it takes for the crew to move into the vehicles. As far as I can remember, the response time requirement has been 3 minutes.

(i) Within 3 minutes from the time of the alarm, at least one required aircraft rescue and firefighting vehicle must reach the midpoint of the farthest runway serving air carrier aircraft from its assigned post or reach any other specified point of comparable distance on the movement area that is available to air carriers, and begin application of extinguishing agent.

(ii) Within 4 minutes from the time of alarm, all other required vehicles must reach the point specified in paragraph (h)(2)(i) of this section from their assigned posts and begin application of an extinguishing agent.


https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c ... 3.139_1319
 
TMccrury
Posts: 70
Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2005 10:24 am

Re: Updated: Aeroflot 1492 SSJ100 fire at Moscow (SVO) - 40+ confirmed dead

Thu May 09, 2019 1:10 pm

THS214 wrote:
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.


I think his basic point was more of what you stated and that is people do some really strange and irrational things during a fire situation. He has been in more burning buildings than he cares to talk about, found folks who succumbed to smoke inhalation just inches from the exit. One on occasion, when he breached the entrance to a burning building, a person fell out on him. After the fire was extinguished, it was learned the man had been mere inches from the door latch based on the fingernail marks on the door. The mind does some really strange things during a fire.
 
A3801000
Posts: 556
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2016 5:12 pm

Re: Updated: Aeroflot 1492 SSJ100 fire at Moscow (SVO) - 40+ confirmed dead

Thu May 09, 2019 1:14 pm

konrad wrote:
I am not sure if this was posted here:
http://ren.tv/novosti/2019-05-07/samole ... -ssj-100-s
(if already posted and discussed before please delete)

This is a transcript of the SU1492 communication with ATC (or at least parts of it) reported by a Russian TV station (in Russian).
Some observations after a first quick reading:
- no problems in communication, the exchange makes it a routine return to the airport due to an emergency
- the approach was ILS which means that avionics and automated flight control was not lost
- the pilot asked for emergency services and the controller confirmed emergency services on the runway


So either there was no real big problem with the plane or the pilot was not aware.

If there was no real problem with the plane it comes down to the pilot and his landing.
If there was a problem with the plane but it did not tell the pilots it comes down to the plane.

I smell a bad case of Russiaitis here
 
User avatar
N14AZ
Posts: 3642
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 10:19 pm

Re: Updated: Aeroflot 1492 SSJ100 fire at Moscow (SVO) - 40+ confirmed dead

Thu May 09, 2019 1:17 pm

A3801000 wrote:
konrad wrote:
I am not sure if this was posted here:
http://ren.tv/novosti/2019-05-07/samole ... -ssj-100-s
(if already posted and discussed before please delete)

This is a transcript of the SU1492 communication with ATC (or at least parts of it) reported by a Russian TV station (in Russian).
Some observations after a first quick reading:
- no problems in communication, the exchange makes it a routine return to the airport due to an emergency
- the approach was ILS which means that avionics and automated flight control was not lost
- the pilot asked for emergency services and the controller confirmed emergency services on the runway


So either there was no real big problem with the plane or the pilot was not aware.

If there was no real problem with the plane it comes down to the pilot and his landing.
If there was a problem with the plane but it did not tell the pilots it comes down to the plane.

Yapp, something still doesn't add up. The Investigation report will be interesting.

R.I.P. to all casualties, the videos are horrible.
 
User avatar
SheikhDjibouti
Posts: 1695
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2017 4:59 pm

Re: Updated: Aeroflot 1492 SSJ100 fire at Moscow (SVO) - 40+ confirmed dead

Thu May 09, 2019 1:46 pm

Finn350 wrote:
FredrikHAD wrote:
In the 80's and 90's, ARFF rules in Europe mandated a 90 second response time (alarm to foam spraying on the fuselage) if (!) the aircraft was within the runway area. At least Arlanda and some larger Swedish airports had fast response vehicles with limited water and foam supplies, but they could initiate the fire fighting effort and the big trucks took over some 30 seconds after the fast response vehicle arrived. Today's rules are a lot slacker than they used to be.

A 90 second response time sounds next to impossible considering runway lengths and that response time includes the time it takes for the crew to move into the vehicles. As far as I can remember, the response time requirement has been 3 minutes.

F9Animal wrote:
Those trucks dont go from zero to 60 in 3 seconds.

Performance data from Rosenbauer.com, and you don't even need to speak fluent German to understand what they are saying. (they probably have an English site somewhere if you are really interested)
Rosenbauer wrote:
Der PANTHER 6x6 punktet mit 750 PS Motorleistung, 120 km/h Höchstgeschwindigkeit, bis zu 14.000 l Löschmittelvolumen, 9.000 l/min Pumpenleistung und einer Beschleunigung von 0 auf 80 km/h in weniger als 28 Sekunden.

It has a big brother 8x8 which has whopping 1400 hp available, but because it weighs in at 52tonnes, it also takes nearly 30 seconds to get going.

From what I recall, standard practice is to position these vehicles some distance off the runway but get them rolling at up to 50 km/h before the aircraft even reaches or passes them. This probably varies from location to location, but getting these beasts moving from a standing start eats up 30 seconds straight off.

At a large airfield with multiple runways, I would advocate splitting the units between more than one fire station to enable a quicker response. But that costs $$$, so I have no idea if anywhere actually does that. I suspect I know the answer. :roll:
Nothing to see here; move along please.
 
User avatar
Finn350
Posts: 1546
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 4:57 am

Re: Updated: Aeroflot 1492 SSJ100 fire at Moscow (SVO) - 40+ confirmed dead

Thu May 09, 2019 3:07 pm

SheikhDjibouti wrote:
Performance data from Rosenbauer.com, and you don't even need to speak fluent German to understand what they are saying. (they probably have an English site somewhere if you are really interested)

It has a big brother 8x8 which has whopping 1400 hp available, but because it weighs in at 52tonnes, it also takes nearly 30 seconds to get going.

From what I recall, standard practice is to position these vehicles some distance off the runway but get them rolling at up to 50 km/h before the aircraft even reaches or passes them. This probably varies from location to location, but getting these beasts moving from a standing start eats up 30 seconds straight off.

At a large airfield with multiple runways, I would advocate splitting the units between more than one fire station to enable a quicker response. But that costs $$$, so I have no idea if anywhere actually does that. I suspect I know the answer. :roll:


As an example, at my home airport, there are 5 heavy duty units of which 4 are always stand-by, split at 3 fire stations around the airport to fulfill the 3 minute response time requirement.

https://www.finavia.fi/en/newsroom/2019 ... ki-airport
 
ZKCIF
Posts: 394
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2010 8:18 pm

Re: Updated: Aeroflot 1492 SSJ100 fire at Moscow (SVO) - 40+ confirmed dead

Thu May 09, 2019 8:39 pm

Armadillo1 wrote:
ZKCIF wrote:
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

this woman is not survivor, but relative, and she sayd what rumors shed heard around.


of course this woman is a relative, but I do not think we can say that she tells rumours.
Being a relative of a survivor, she retells what the survivor told her in private and, most likely, what the survivor will tell in court if required.
Why do you think it is RUMOURS?
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 19216
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

Re: Updated: Aeroflot 1492 SSJ100 fire at Moscow (SVO) - 40+ confirmed dead

Thu May 09, 2019 10:38 pm

N14AZ wrote:
SomebodyInTLS wrote:
F9Animal wrote:
I think it should be in every safety announcement that carry on bags remain in the event of a need to evacuate the plane.

Maybe instead of just having it in the announcement they need to make a bigger deal about it during the video or crew demonstrations... Like crew pointing at the overheads and shaking their heads, big red crosses flashing over the overheads in the video, video of some guy trying to open a locker and getting trampled by the rest of the passengers... heh heh.

I am really not trying to get off-topic but I would like to add that this is what really concerns me about the latest safety videos I saw on my last two trips: TK in April and TG in March.

They have nothing to do with aircraft safety, IMHO. It might be big fun to watch these LEGO toys (TK) and this lunatic young woman in the jungle (TG) but just imagine these airlines would have a similar crash as this one here. I guess people would quickly ask why do you concentrate on the show and all the jokes in your videos and not on procedures that could save lives, in case of an emergency.


Most people pay no attention to safety videos. If you can get them to pay attention by showing something actually attention-grabbing, you can hope they will retain a shred of information. Slim hope, but better than nothing.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
SurlyBonds
Posts: 322
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2015 10:24 am

Re: Updated: Aeroflot 1492 SSJ100 fire at Moscow (SVO) - 40+ confirmed dead

Thu May 09, 2019 11:29 pm

N14AZ wrote:
what really concerns me about the latest safety videos I saw on my last two trips: TK in April and TG in March.

They have nothing to do with aircraft safety, IMHO. It might be big fun to watch these LEGO toys (TK) and this lunatic young woman in the jungle (TG) but just imagine these airlines would have a similar crash as this one here. I guess people would quickly ask why do you concentrate on the show and all the jokes in your videos and not on procedures that could save lives, in case of an emergency.


I strongly agree with this. No one who watches one of these "cutesy" safety videos will have the slightest idea of what to do in an emergency. That's particularly true with videos that take place outside a real cabin, like United's recent video which plops a row of seats right down the middle of Mardi Gras or whatever. And I would like too see real data that more people watch them in any event.
 
SurlyBonds
Posts: 322
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2015 10:24 am

Re: Updated: Aeroflot 1492 SSJ100 fire at Moscow (SVO) - 40+ confirmed dead

Thu May 09, 2019 11:33 pm

Starlionblue wrote:
If you can get them to pay attention by showing something actually attention-grabbing, you can hope they will retain a shred of information. Slim hope, but better than nothing.


I'm not sure that retaining a shred of useless information really makes anyone better off. That TK video where Batman continually appears and makes derailing, off topic comments is particularly glaring. And again, I'd like real data that says they pay more attention to "cutesy" videos than traditional ones. I personally could care less about Betty White putting an appearance in some safety video.
 
dfwjim1
Posts: 2141
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2011 8:46 pm

Re: Updated: Aeroflot 1492 SSJ100 fire at Moscow (SVO) - 40+ confirmed dead

Fri May 10, 2019 12:14 am

Not sure if this has been mentioned yet...in commercial jets would it be possible to install a device or control that could lock the overhead compartments (operated by the pilots or cabin crew) in the event of an emergency that would require evacuation of an aircraft?
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9527
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

Re: Updated: Aeroflot 1492 SSJ100 fire at Moscow (SVO) - 40+ confirmed dead

Fri May 10, 2019 1:32 am

dfwjim1 wrote:
Not sure if this has been mentioned yet...in commercial jets would it be possible to install a device or control that could lock the overhead compartments (operated by the pilots or cabin crew) in the event of an emergency that would require evacuation of an aircraft?


Yes. I'd review the thread if you have time as that discussion has been a big part of it.
-Dave


MAX’d out on MAX threads. If you are starting a thread, and it’s about the MAX - stop. There’s already a thread that covers it.
 
YYZYYT
Posts: 1009
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2005 12:41 am

Re: Updated: Aeroflot 1492 SSJ100 fire at Moscow (SVO) - 40+ confirmed dead

Fri May 10, 2019 3:20 pm

SurlyBonds wrote:
Starlionblue wrote:
If you can get them to pay attention by showing something actually attention-grabbing, you can hope they will retain a shred of information. Slim hope, but better than nothing.


I'm not sure that retaining a shred of useless information really makes anyone better off. That TK video where Batman continually appears and makes derailing, off topic comments is particularly glaring. And again, I'd like real data that says they pay more attention to "cutesy" videos than traditional ones. I personally could care less about Betty White putting an appearance in some safety video.


Honestly, the most attention grabbing safety demonstration I have ever had was an old-fashioned FA demonstration, reciting a script on BD (many years ago, when there was a BD). What got my attention was language, possibly improvised by the FA, along the lines of "please pay attention, we're not doing this for our own benefit, but your. it's important, and if there's an emergency it may save your life."

The problem with safety videos is that airlines go out of their way to present the info without alarming the passengers, to the point where there is no real sense that the information is important or why. Even where it is a traditional video showing people in a cabin, they are never crowded, alarmed, hurried... just a smiling FA (er, model dressed like an FA) in the aircraft door, pulling the tab on the inflatable vest as they step out... At least the FA demonstrations In the old days had a sense of immediacy, you got the message: we are taking the time to show this to you because its important.

Maybe some thought should be given to mandatory content that makes the message a little more relevant?

I'm thinking of tobacco packaging in Canada as an example... where health warnings must be a particular size, font, and % of package surface, and must include graphic photographs. Once upon a time it was possible to overlook or dismiss miss the health warnings, but not anymore. I understand that the purpose of the tobacco warning is different (to drive people off smoking), but surely ome middle ground can be found?

ie, actual cabin, actual full rows of seats, and something approximating an evacuation?
 
User avatar
remcor
Posts: 366
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2006 9:25 am

Re: Updated: Aeroflot 1492 SSJ100 fire at Moscow (SVO) - 40+ confirmed dead

Fri May 10, 2019 5:26 pm

F9Animal wrote:
I will never forget the time I was a kid flying on a Republic DC-9. There was a horrible sound coming from the back of the plane. Apparently a guy went into the bathroom and lit a cigarette. Then he tried to break the smoke detector by bashing it with his shoe! If I recall, he was arrested for it.


When I hear that part of the announcement that it's illegal to disable smoke detectors I sometimes think "ok who's the as*hole that caused them to have to make an announcement every time".
:D
 
sgbroimp
Posts: 189
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2016 6:35 pm

Re: Updated: Aeroflot 1492 SSJ100 fire at Moscow (SVO) - 40+ confirmed dead

Fri May 10, 2019 5:30 pm

There probably is no textbook safety video but memorable are the LH crash dummies from a few years ago and the current SIA video which uses what is essentially a metaphor showing the beautiful Singapore region and people enjoying it. Very cleverly done and folks seem to be watching it attentively.
 
User avatar
remcor
Posts: 366
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2006 9:25 am

Re: Updated: Aeroflot 1492 SSJ100 fire at Moscow (SVO) - 40+ confirmed dead

Fri May 10, 2019 5:31 pm

Bjorn of Leeham has an analysis which he guesses that the bad landing was caused by a pilot induced oscillation partly because the crew were inexperienced with flying the plane when in Direct Law.
https://leehamnews.com/2019/05/10/bjorn ... o-airport/
 
User avatar
readytotaxi
Posts: 6358
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 2:09 am

Re: Updated: Aeroflot 1492 SSJ100 fire at Moscow (SVO) - 40+ confirmed dead

Fri May 10, 2019 5:33 pm

As an armchair fireman I have always wondered why crews are not always stationed half way down the runway as well as the chasers at the begining? guess they have a good reason. :confused:
you don't get a second chance to make a first impression!
Growing older, but not up.
 
eielef
Posts: 685
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 4:07 am

Re: Updated: Aeroflot 1492 SSJ100 fire at Moscow (SVO) - 40+ confirmed dead

Fri May 10, 2019 6:26 pm

As far as the safety demonstrations, the FAA states that they must include very few items: (1 ban of smoking, 2 seat belts, 3 seat backs in the upright position, 4 emergency exits, 5 survival equipment, 6 flotation equipment, 7 oxygen masks, 8 fire extinguishers, 9 life preservers (in helicopters). (complete link: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/135.117)
Also, the Australian legislation is even shorter: https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2009C00093
14.1.1 The operator of an aircraft shall ensure that all passengers are orally briefed before each take-off on:
(a) smoking, including the prohibition of smoking in toilets; and
(b) the use and adjustment of seat belts; and
(c) the location of emergency exits; and
(d) the use of oxygen where applicable; and
(e) the use of flotation devices where applicable; and
(f) stowage of hand luggage; and
(g) the presence on board of special survival equipment where applicable


Neither of them include that hand luggage must not be taken away during an emergency.
Maybe the safety demonstrations should be updated. Maybe they are already too long, but is safety.
If I'm not mistaken, pre-flight demonstrations were not common in the 80s, and Air Canada was fresh doing them. After the AC797 fire in Cincinnati they become mandatory in Canada first and worldwide later. I think they've saved lives. But they are not very complete. Like: some times you recall some information that you believe should be included but it is not.
E.G. the use of high heeled shoes during evacuation, or the carriage of hand luggage, or that seat cushions are floating devices, or that you can't inflate your life vests inside the cabin (remember those who didn't know it on the highjacking of Ethiopian back in the 1990s?)...

Maybe this is an important lesson from this accident. Hopefully it is.
 
bmibaby737
Posts: 1587
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2005 1:07 am

Re: Updated: Aeroflot 1492 SSJ100 fire at Moscow (SVO) - 40+ confirmed dead

Fri May 10, 2019 7:03 pm

eielef wrote:
Neither of them include that hand luggage must not be taken away during an emergency.
Maybe the safety demonstrations should be updated. Maybe they are already too long, but is safety.


UK airlines already remind you before landing to leave behind luggage should the aircraft evacuate. Was introduced as a result of the BA incident in USA I believe.
 
User avatar
Phosphorus
Posts: 518
Joined: Tue May 16, 2017 11:38 am

Re: Updated: Aeroflot 1492 SSJ100 fire at Moscow (SVO) - 40+ confirmed dead

Fri May 10, 2019 7:40 pm

readytotaxi wrote:
As an armchair fireman I have always wondered why crews are not always stationed half way down the runway as well as the chasers at the begining? guess they have a good reason. :confused:


accident plane veering off the runway and colliding with rescue vehicles, making the problem worse, is a possibility worth conidering
AN4 A40 L4T TU3 TU5 IL6 ILW I93 F50 F70 100 146 ARJ AT7 DH4 L10 CRJ ERJ E90 E95 DC-9 MD-8X YK4 YK2 SF3 S20 319 320 321 332 333 343 346 722 732 733 734 735 73G 738 739 744 74M 757 767 777
Ceterum autem censeo, Moscovia esse delendam
 
User avatar
eisenbach
Posts: 178
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2001 12:57 am

Re: Updated: Aeroflot 1492 SSJ100 fire at Moscow (SVO) - 40+ confirmed dead

Fri May 10, 2019 8:10 pm

SheikhDjibouti wrote:
Finn350 wrote:
FredrikHAD wrote:
In the 80's and 90's, ARFF rules in Europe mandated a 90 second response time (alarm to foam spraying on the fuselage) if (!) the aircraft was within the runway area. At least Arlanda and some larger Swedish airports had fast response vehicles with limited water and foam supplies, but they could initiate the fire fighting effort and the big trucks took over some 30 seconds after the fast response vehicle arrived. Today's rules are a lot slacker than they used to be.

A 90 second response time sounds next to impossible considering runway lengths and that response time includes the time it takes for the crew to move into the vehicles. As far as I can remember, the response time requirement has been 3 minutes.

F9Animal wrote:
Those trucks dont go from zero to 60 in 3 seconds.

Performance data from Rosenbauer.com, and you don't even need to speak fluent German to understand what they are saying. (they probably have an English site somewhere if you are really interested)
Rosenbauer wrote:
Der PANTHER 6x6 punktet mit 750 PS Motorleistung, 120 km/h Höchstgeschwindigkeit, bis zu 14.000 l Löschmittelvolumen, 9.000 l/min Pumpenleistung und einer Beschleunigung von 0 auf 80 km/h in weniger als 28 Sekunden.

It has a big brother 8x8 which has whopping 1400 hp available, but because it weighs in at 52tonnes, it also takes nearly 30 seconds to get going.

From what I recall, standard practice is to position these vehicles some distance off the runway but get them rolling at up to 50 km/h before the aircraft even reaches or passes them. This probably varies from location to location, but getting these beasts moving from a standing start eats up 30 seconds straight off.

At a large airfield with multiple runways, I would advocate splitting the units between more than one fire station to enable a quicker response. But that costs $$$, so I have no idea if anywhere actually does that. I suspect I know the answer. :roll:



Hi, your translation was unfortunately wrong. The Rosenbauer site stated, that it just takes 28 seconds to accelerate from 0 to 80 kph.

From my experience, the fire fighter cars start immediately, as a common car or truck!
DC-6, DC9, Do228, Saab340, Twin-Otter, C212, Fokker50, AN24, MD90, MD83, EMB120, A380, A300, A343, A346, B721, B742, B744, B748...
 
tallis
Posts: 12
Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 10:02 pm

Re: Updated: Aeroflot 1492 SSJ100 fire at Moscow (SVO) - 40+ confirmed dead

Fri May 10, 2019 8:41 pm

SheikhDjibouti wrote:
At a large airfield with multiple runways, I would advocate splitting the units between more than one fire station to enable a quicker response. But that costs $$$, so I have no idea if anywhere actually does that. I suspect I know the answer. :roll:


A lot of larger airports do indeed have ‘remote’ fire stations positioned near to certain runways in order to satisfy minimum response time criteria.

There’s a monumentally dull section in ATPL Air Law about it.

Like everything else in airport design, these sort of things are very strictly mandated so it doesn’t come down to $$$ as much as you think!
 
ozark1
Posts: 815
Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2006 4:38 am

Re: Updated: Aeroflot 1492 SSJ100 fire at Moscow (SVO) - 40+ confirmed dead

Fri May 10, 2019 9:14 pm

F9Animal wrote:
remcor wrote:
BerenErchamion wrote:

Are panicking people particularly known for considering the long-term consequences of their panicking as they're panicking?

Not doing something because you don't want to get punished for it is a rational response, sure--but so is leaving your bags on board as you evacuate an airplane. The problem is that panicking people, by definition, are, through no fault of their own, *not* responding to the situation rationally. So it's not clear to me how something predicated on people making a rational decision is going to effect any behavioral change here.

Best to try to design systems that minimize the opportunity for panicking people to impede the safety of themselves and others (part of which, of course, includes minimizing to the extent feasible the likelihood of such scenarios arising in the first place).


Maybe, but I'd argue if you're truly panicking you wouldn't grab your luggage - I'm sure the people in the back of the plane weren't. We're told each time we board a plane that it's illegal to disable smoke detectors, and all of us know this because we've heard it dozens of times. So maybe hearing "it is unlawful for you to retrieve or bring any luggage down an escape slide" over-and-over might put a mental bookmark in people.


I will never forget the time I was a kid flying on a Republic DC-9. There was a horrible sound coming from the back of the plane. Apparently a guy went into the bathroom and lit a cigarette. Then he tried to break the smoke detector by bashing it with his shoe! If I recall, he was arrested for it.

I think it should be in every safety announcement that carry on bags remain in the event of a need to evacuate the plane.

This has been in safety videos and announcements for eternity. No one cares. They automatically go into "it's all about me" mode and since no one has listened to announcements anyway, they lose the concept of the importance of getting out fast. Let's get dramatic. Show the video of that plane landing. Then say, "You need to leave your luggage. This plane could have exploded at any moment. Any valuable can be replaced. Your life cannot". But of course that will never happen. Instead of all these cutesy safety demos, let's get real to the severity of it all.
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 19216
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

Re: Updated: Aeroflot 1492 SSJ100 fire at Moscow (SVO) - 40+ confirmed dead

Fri May 10, 2019 11:23 pm

tallis wrote:
SheikhDjibouti wrote:
At a large airfield with multiple runways, I would advocate splitting the units between more than one fire station to enable a quicker response. But that costs $$$, so I have no idea if anywhere actually does that. I suspect I know the answer. :roll:


A lot of larger airports do indeed have ‘remote’ fire stations positioned near to certain runways in order to satisfy minimum response time criteria.

There’s a monumentally dull section in ATPL Air Law about it.

Like everything else in airport design, these sort of things are very strictly mandated so it doesn’t come down to $$$ as much as you think!


Which part of ATPL Air Law isn't monumentally dull? ;)
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
eielef
Posts: 685
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 4:07 am

Re: Updated: Aeroflot 1492 SSJ100 fire at Moscow (SVO) - 40+ confirmed dead

Fri May 10, 2019 11:41 pm

tallis wrote:
SheikhDjibouti wrote:
At a large airfield with multiple runways, I would advocate splitting the units between more than one fire station to enable a quicker response. But that costs $$$, so I have no idea if anywhere actually does that. I suspect I know the answer. :roll:


A lot of larger airports do indeed have ‘remote’ fire stations positioned near to certain runways in order to satisfy minimum response time criteria.


Imagine a two runway airport. For instance, London Heathrow.
Say the ATC will use 09L for Landings and 09R for Take Off. Place a fire truck half away between 09L/27R and another half away between 09R/27R. And leave them there, for 90 minutes, on hold. Do the same, in the following shift, with new fire fighters, another truck, in the same position, for 90 minutes. And so on, during all the hours the airport operate. 7 days a week.
It shouldn't cost any penny more, just maybe a few gallons of diesel a week moving the trucks from their base to this remote position and back. Nothing else is needed, not even anything needs to be build, maybe a small parking space on the service road, so that the truck can be parked, the closest and safest possible to the runway, without interfering the airport's operation.

Fire fighters will be full geared, waiting inside the truck, for the very unlikely case of an accident to occur, during their 90 min shift.

Very unlikely as it sounds, if the truck is here, from their parking position to the likely place of a crash, it shouldn't take any longer than 30 seconds to reach the aircraft. Sure is only one truck, but it will start doing the work, till other trucks from base, and the other in the opposite runway arrive.
 
ikramerica
Posts: 14816
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

Re: Updated: Aeroflot 1492 SSJ100 fire at Moscow (SVO) - 40+ confirmed dead

Sat May 11, 2019 12:11 am

I believe the thought is that before an emergency landing, the crew has specific instructions that include the bracing position, exits, shoes, bags, etc.

The problem is, during a botched landing, no such instructions can be given before panic has set in.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
User avatar
mtzguerrero
Posts: 8
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2018 9:56 pm

Re: Updated: Aeroflot 1492 SSJ100 fire at Moscow (SVO) - 40+ confirmed dead

Sat May 11, 2019 12:42 am

remcor wrote:
Bjorn of Leeham has an analysis which he guesses that the bad landing was caused by a pilot induced oscillation partly because the crew were inexperienced with flying the plane when in Direct Law.
https://leehamnews.com/2019/05/10/bjorn ... o-airport/


That sounds completely reasonable. I asked here about the posibility of something like that happening, but carry-on luggage has been dominating the conversation.
 
Venatt
Posts: 54
Joined: Mon Feb 17, 2014 5:58 am

Re: Updated: Aeroflot 1492 SSJ100 fire at Moscow (SVO) - 40+ confirmed dead

Sat May 11, 2019 2:08 am

According to this article a Fat Man cause many passenger do die in crash, only three people behind him managed to get out, and he still got his carry on luggage and still demanded a refund after that and was very upset.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... crash.html
 
MD80Ttail
Posts: 153
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2016 1:22 am

Re: Updated: Aeroflot 1492 SSJ100 fire at Moscow (SVO) - 40+ confirmed dead

Sat May 11, 2019 2:17 am

Many years ago I clearly remember aircraft engine manufactures working with fuel suppliers to create a fuel that wouldn’t burn during a crash if tanks were torn open. I honestly can’t remember if this was 80s-90s-2000s.

Jet fuel is basically kerosene. It’s really not that flammable in a liquid state. It needs to be vaporized to ignite and the vapors themselves are highly flammable. If you have a 55 Gallon drum of it and somehow there were no vapors and you drop a match into the drum of fuel it would put the match out. The theory was to develop an agent added to the fuel that would cause it to clump or gel and substantially reduce if not eliminate a fire during a crash.

I may not have all of the details correct. Can anyone remember this?? Obviously there were technical and or financial problems because it’s never been released.
Last edited by MD80Ttail on Sat May 11, 2019 2:18 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 19216
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

Re: Updated: Aeroflot 1492 SSJ100 fire at Moscow (SVO) - 40+ confirmed dead

Sat May 11, 2019 2:18 am

eielef wrote:
tallis wrote:
SheikhDjibouti wrote:
At a large airfield with multiple runways, I would advocate splitting the units between more than one fire station to enable a quicker response. But that costs $$$, so I have no idea if anywhere actually does that. I suspect I know the answer. :roll:


A lot of larger airports do indeed have ‘remote’ fire stations positioned near to certain runways in order to satisfy minimum response time criteria.


Imagine a two runway airport. For instance, London Heathrow.
Say the ATC will use 09L for Landings and 09R for Take Off. Place a fire truck half away between 09L/27R and another half away between 09R/27R. And leave them there, for 90 minutes, on hold. Do the same, in the following shift, with new fire fighters, another truck, in the same position, for 90 minutes. And so on, during all the hours the airport operate. 7 days a week.
It shouldn't cost any penny more, just maybe a few gallons of diesel a week moving the trucks from their base to this remote position and back. Nothing else is needed, not even anything needs to be build, maybe a small parking space on the service road, so that the truck can be parked, the closest and safest possible to the runway, without interfering the airport's operation.

Fire fighters will be full geared, waiting inside the truck, for the very unlikely case of an accident to occur, during their 90 min shift.

Very unlikely as it sounds, if the truck is here, from their parking position to the likely place of a crash, it shouldn't take any longer than 30 seconds to reach the aircraft. Sure is only one truck, but it will start doing the work, till other trucks from base, and the other in the opposite runway arrive.


Since the probability of a landing accident without any prior warning is so close to zero it isn't even worth talking about, this seems like a waste of resources. You're tiring out the firefighters for no good reason. They're much better off either running actual drills or resting at the ready. Heck, even doing paperwork.

Furthermore, 30 seconds is completely unrealistic. Runways at big airports are 3-4km long. The distance between the runways is almost a kilometer. Assuming 800 meters between runways, and two identical 3500 meter runways (both runways at LHR are longer), as well as a completely "square" configuration. the straight line distance from the center of the airport to any given threshold (worst case scenario location such as the BA crash at LHR), is 1.92km. Obviously, taxiways don't go in straight lines like that, plus all those buildings. The real distance would easily be over 2.5km. In order to cover 2.5km in 30 seconds you need to be doing 5km/minute, or 300km/h, on average. Not exactly possible for a fire truck. Plus we are assuming no traffic is already occupying the taxiways, which it would be.


Venatt wrote:
According to this article a Fat Man cause many passenger do die in crash, only three people behind him managed to get out, and he still got his carry on luggage and still demanded a refund after that and was very upset.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... crash.html


Already mentioned. Also.... Daily Mail...
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
THS214
Posts: 156
Joined: Thu Jul 27, 2017 4:01 pm

Re: Updated: Aeroflot 1492 SSJ100 fire at Moscow (SVO) - 40+ confirmed dead

Sat May 11, 2019 2:41 am

A lot of people here are complaining about passengers not following safety instructions yet cheer when safety instructions are based on Hobbities, Legos or Southwest funny as h..l safety demonstrations. Safety wise it doesn't work. Passengers concentrate on wrong things. Southwest passenger knows it was funny but if you ask them what safety related they remember of that "my ex husband" tirade the answer is none.

The old fashion safety demonstration is clearly the best. Instead of watching boring demonstration from a small screen people see real human and that get their attention.
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 19216
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

Re: Updated: Aeroflot 1492 SSJ100 fire at Moscow (SVO) - 40+ confirmed dead

Sat May 11, 2019 3:29 am

THS214 wrote:
A lot of people here are complaining about passengers not following safety instructions yet cheer when safety instructions are based on Hobbities, Legos or Southwest funny as h..l safety demonstrations. Safety wise it doesn't work. Passengers concentrate on wrong things. Southwest passenger knows it was funny but if you ask them what safety related they remember of that "my ex husband" tirade the answer is none.

The old fashion safety demonstration is clearly the best. Instead of watching boring demonstration from a small screen people see real human and that get their attention.


I agree. However most people don't pay attention to that either. I'm the guy who always checks where the exits, how the doors work, and if my life vest is in place. Same as when I get to a hotel I check where the fire exits are. But I'm not a "normal" flyer.

When I get asked about that safety demo stuff, I always tell people to check where the nearest four exits are, including the two behind them. No other thing else even comes close when it comes to increasing your chances of survival in an emergency. Knowing how to put the life vest is reasonably intuitive and most likely you'll have time to figure it out. The oxygen masks are not that hard to at least get oxygen out of, though the "over the NOSE and mouth" bit seems lost on many. And even if you lose consciousness you'll either get help or be at a safe altitude within minutes. Getting to your exit with fire and smoke? No time to look it up if something happens.

All that being said, the likelihood of even a very frequent flyer, or a pilot, ever being in any sort of emergency situation is exceedingly slim. The chance of being in a car accident is an order of magnitude bigger.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
THS214
Posts: 156
Joined: Thu Jul 27, 2017 4:01 pm

Re: Updated: Aeroflot 1492 SSJ100 fire at Moscow (SVO) - 40+ confirmed dead

Sat May 11, 2019 4:05 am

Starlionblue wrote:
THS214 wrote:
A lot of people here are complaining about passengers not following safety instructions yet cheer when safety instructions are based on Hobbities, Legos or Southwest funny as h..l safety demonstrations. Safety wise it doesn't work. Passengers concentrate on wrong things. Southwest passenger knows it was funny but if you ask them what safety related they remember of that "my ex husband" tirade the answer is none.

The old fashion safety demonstration is clearly the best. Instead of watching boring demonstration from a small screen people see real human and that get their attention.


I agree. However most people don't pay attention to that either. I'm the guy who always checks where the exits, how the doors work, and if my life vest is in place. Same as when I get to a hotel I check where the fire exits are. But I'm not a "normal" flyer.

When I get asked about that safety demo stuff, I always tell people to check where the nearest four exits are, including the two behind them. No other thing else even comes close when it comes to increasing your chances of survival in an emergency. Knowing how to put the life vest is reasonably intuitive and most likely you'll have time to figure it out. The oxygen masks are not that hard to at least get oxygen out of, though the "over the NOSE and mouth" bit seems lost on many. And even if you lose consciousness you'll either get help or be at a safe altitude within minutes. Getting to your exit with fire and smoke? No time to look it up if something happens.

All that being said, the likelihood of even a very frequent flyer, or a pilot, ever being in any sort of emergency situation is exceedingly slim. The chance of being in a car accident is an order of magnitude bigger.


I do pretty much the same.

One more thing, always count seats to forward and aft to the door. When you can't see and breath just touch every seat row, count and you are at the exit.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos