It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

One dead in SuperJet fire

page: 2
19
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 5 2019 @ 03:24 PM
link   
Personally I hate taking hand luggage on with me, everything except my essentials like phone wallet passport are on me it saves time going through security and getting off the plane




posted on May, 5 2019 @ 03:27 PM
link   
a reply to: ThePeaceMaker

My laptop goes with me, just because I know what happens in the luggage room. But I'll be god damned if I'm going to try to grab it if we're getting off in a hurry.



posted on May, 5 2019 @ 03:51 PM
link   



posted on May, 5 2019 @ 03:56 PM
link   
Only ‘37 out of 78 survived’ Superjet-100 crash-landing & fire – media citing investigators

link



posted on May, 5 2019 @ 04:06 PM
link   
I knew the toll would rise after seeing the extent of the damage and the size of the fire, only two slides being deployed it wouldn't of gave much hope for those at the rear of the aircraft. Tragic .. RIP

Regards to people attempting to retrieve their luggage could they not introduce something where all the lockers are locked until an aircraft has safely been parked? Passengers could request them to be opened during flight and opened by crew with some sort of electronic key fob?



posted on May, 5 2019 @ 04:22 PM
link   
a reply to: ThePeaceMaker

That's what it's going to come down to. Leave it unlocked during cruise, and lock it physically for landing and takeoff. That way if they lose power it stays locked.



posted on May, 5 2019 @ 04:55 PM
link   
Russian sources are saying the lightning caused a general electrical failure, and loss of comms shortly after takeoff.



posted on May, 5 2019 @ 05:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Would that cause them to loose some controls? It looked as if there was too much speed causing it to jump up then hit the runway hard again and thets when it caught fire? If you look at the radar it attempted a land but had to go around again, do you think they aborted to try to figure out if the plane could reduce speed and get an idea of what was working and what wasnt working as far as controls go? This is tragic.



posted on May, 5 2019 @ 05:29 PM
link   
a reply to: C84K2

An electrical failure can, and does, affect multiple systems on the aircraft. This will include the flaps ability to deploy normally. The RAT will deploy, giving them some electrical power, but it's designed for minimal power, and to power the most important systems on the aircraft. It can't power everything.



posted on May, 5 2019 @ 06:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Thanks Zaphod.



posted on May, 5 2019 @ 06:24 PM
link   
Gotta love airline understatement. Aeroflot says that the aircraft suffered an "ignition of the engines" after landing.

www.flightglobal.com...



posted on May, 5 2019 @ 08:28 PM
link   



posted on May, 5 2019 @ 08:35 PM
link   
After viewing the footage of the landing, the inside footage etc., flames appear to be toward the rear of the aircraft, so could the heavy impact on the initial landing caused fatalities?



posted on May, 5 2019 @ 08:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Zcustosmorum

Possibly, but not likely. It was hard enough to collapse the main landing gear, but that isn't necessarily hard enough to cause fatal injuries.



posted on May, 5 2019 @ 08:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Zcustosmorum

Possibly, but not likely. It was hard enough to collapse the main landing gear, but that isn't necessarily hard enough to cause fatal injuries.


So what's your assessment, fire, smoke inhalation?



posted on May, 5 2019 @ 08:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Zcustosmorum

A combination of the two. Some fire, some smoke inhalation. Most things in the cabin become toxic when they burn, and it doesn't take long for flashover to happen once a fire starts. There are reports that the evacuation was delayed by people going into the overhead, which almost guaranteed that some from the rear didn't have a chance to get out. They only had two available exits to them, all the way forward.
edit on 5/5/2019 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 5 2019 @ 08:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

If I remember correctly, response on landing was 2 minutes, and in that time roughly half on board were wiped out, assuming the emergency exits weren't deployed beforehand, to a layman, something still seems strange



posted on May, 5 2019 @ 08:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Zcustosmorum

That's pretty much right. Our best guess (a group of professionals and semiprofessionals have been discussing it) is that they lost flaps, so had to land fast. When they came down hard that last time, the mains collapsed, and the center fuel tank was ruptured. The burn through at the top of the cabin is pretty close to straight above where the back of the center tank is located in the fuselage. That caused a major fuel leak, and with the fuselage dragging along the ground from the mains being collapsed, you had the spark that ignited the fuel.



posted on May, 5 2019 @ 09:06 PM
link   
Looks like very high speed approach then porpoising on runway several times very hard. Last bounce which I'm assuming shoved mains up into wings puncturing full fuel tanks looked very nasty.

As said earlier complete loss of electrical system compromises many functions and pilot probably doing best he could. Anybody remember Sioux City DC-10 with severed hydraulics, probably something similar on fly by wire used nowadays.

Sorry Zaph typing when you posted above but certainly in agreement.
edit on 5-5-2019 by Phoenix because: add comment



posted on May, 5 2019 @ 09:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Will be interesting to find out once the investigation is complete



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join