SU1492 returns to SVO and catches fire 05/05/19
May 7, 2019, 12:53 am
#81
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: UK
Programs: BA Gold
Posts: 532
There appears to be more than one passenger leaving with baggage. I hope I'm mis-seeing this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_AAVBAPEtNM
Apologies if this was posted earlier. Then I missed it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_AAVBAPEtNM
Apologies if this was posted earlier. Then I missed it.
I'm actually surprised how few passengers are leaving with bags. However, I fully expect the messaging from will be to blame the passengers and thus conveniently move attention from the fact: that lightning shouldn't cause a degradation in aircraft control mode, the crew should be able to fly in "direct" control law, a bounced landing shouldn't drive both sets of main gear through the wing, with external fires the cabin should remain survivable long enough for all passengers to evacuate, a pre-warned emergency by a relatively small airport, at a major international airport, should have an emergency service response sufficient to drive back the fire and protect the exits and fuselage long enough for the passengers to escape.
May 7, 2019, 9:13 am
#84
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Sunny So Cal
Programs: SPG, HH, IHG, BA, DL
Posts: 192
Unfortunately, the plane did not have time to jettison the jet fuel prior to making the landing.
With a full tank of fuel, the landing distance is greatly increased as well as difficulty controlling the touchdown.
So the plane hit the ground hard and caused bouncing which led to the difficult touchdown and subsequent loss of landing gears.
I'd say the pilots did a great job saving the plane and half it's pax.
With a full tank of fuel, the landing distance is greatly increased as well as difficulty controlling the touchdown.
So the plane hit the ground hard and caused bouncing which led to the difficult touchdown and subsequent loss of landing gears.
I'd say the pilots did a great job saving the plane and half it's pax.
May 7, 2019, 10:31 am
#85
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Brexile in ADB
Programs: BA, TK, HHonours, Le Club, Best Western Rewards
Posts: 7,067
Unfortunately, the plane did not have time to jettison the jet fuel prior to making the landing.
With a full tank of fuel, the landing distance is greatly increased as well as difficulty controlling the touchdown.
So the plane hit the ground hard and caused bouncing which led to the difficult touchdown and subsequent loss of landing gears.
I'd say the pilots did a great job saving the plane and half it's pax.
With a full tank of fuel, the landing distance is greatly increased as well as difficulty controlling the touchdown.
So the plane hit the ground hard and caused bouncing which led to the difficult touchdown and subsequent loss of landing gears.
I'd say the pilots did a great job saving the plane and half it's pax.
May 7, 2019, 10:35 am
#86
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Minneapolis: DL DM charter 2.3MM
Programs: A3*Gold, SPG Plat, HyattDiamond, MarriottPP, LHW exAccess, ICI, Raffles Amb, NW PE MM, TWA Gold MM
Posts: 100,404
How long was the route compared to the aircraft's maximum range? I'm trying to guess whether the fuel tanks would have been full or only half full for this flight.
May 7, 2019, 10:44 am
#87
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 2010
Programs: AA
Posts: 14,733
May 7, 2019, 11:25 am
#89
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 439
As a rule single aisle aircraft do not need to be able to dump fuel and thus most are not designed with that requirement. They don't need that much fuel since they are by design, not flying long distances with large amounts of fuel. I find this argument a bit of a distraction because I cannot imagine anyone seriously thinking that dumping fuel is the first thought that comes to mind.
May 7, 2019, 11:29 am
#90
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: PEK
Programs: A3*G, UA Gold EY Silver
Posts: 8,956
Unfortunately, the plane did not have time to jettison the jet fuel prior to making the landing.
With a full tank of fuel, the landing distance is greatly increased as well as difficulty controlling the touchdown.
So the plane hit the ground hard and caused bouncing which led to the difficult touchdown and subsequent loss of landing gears.
With a full tank of fuel, the landing distance is greatly increased as well as difficulty controlling the touchdown.
So the plane hit the ground hard and caused bouncing which led to the difficult touchdown and subsequent loss of landing gears.
I'd say the pilots did a great job saving the plane and half it's pax.
What systems failed onboard after the lightning strike? Why did the pilot make a decision to land an overweight plane and not burn off enough fuel to put it below MLW? What procedures were followed/not followed? Were the procedures correct? When the pilot did land an overweight plane - did he do it properly or could it have been done better? Were the engines shut down as soon as possible to allow for a quick evacuation? All of this will need to be answered by investigators.
One more question that needs to be answered - what plastic did they use for the cabin and what is its fire rating. How is this compared to Boeing/Airbus planes? How does this get certified?
In the US we have 14 CFR § 25.853 (and appendix F), what's the equivalent GOST in Russia?
Last edited by Palal; May 7, 2019 at 11:38 am