One dead in SuperJet fire

The footage from the inside of the plane is horrifying, hearing the hysterical screams in the background. Were those people who were catching on fire? I know that's a terrible thing to say, but I'm likely not the only person to wonder.

My ex-husband would never let us get assigned seats at the back of the plane. He always said that if a fire started it would be back there, and something about being dangerous being above the engine.

I noticed some time delays in-between people going down the emergency slides. It seems like by that time, people would be bunched up at the front of the plane, pushing to get to that slide. If the plane were on fire and I was in the back, I don't think anyone could stop me from getting to the front of the plane. Those that died, did they immediately get engulfed in flames, or was there a chance everyone could have made it to the front?

Video is a-hole CNN. The last few minutes are spent talking about Boeing, the angle of attack sensors, and how long Boeing knew there was a problem.

a reply to: KansasGirl

It's not clear if the fire had burned through at that point, but I don't think it had. They were still moving when that was filmed, so most likely what you were hearing was panic from seeing that much fire, and the plane sliding down the runway after the gear collapsed.

The way the aircraft burned, there's almost no chance that everyone could have been evacuated. They only had to accessible slides to use, and 76 people to get down them. Even if everyone was seating as close to the front as possible, the chances aren't good they could have all gotten out. There's usually some delay in starting an evacuation, from sheer shock if nothing else, but in this case, people were reporting not long after that they were stacking up in the aisle, as people ahead of them were grabbing their bags to take with them.

Luckily this is completely unrelated to the Jet that overshot the runway in Jacksonville and landed in the river carrying a lot of American military and civilian personnel flying back from Cuba a handful of days earlier.

tit for tat

a reply to: Zaphod58

In one of the videos from the inside, you can see gray smoke wafting forward, and then as the filmer turns the camera to behind him briefly before it cuts off, you can see heavy gray smoke. 😰. Regarding the people trying to get their crap out of the overhead bins, I pray that is exaggerated because it's too awful to think about. Sadly it's not hard to imagine that actually happening though. I wonder if any of those who held up the aisle, if they will ever wonder if they prevented someone else from getting out.

Is it common to immediately launch a CRIMINAL investigation? The "expert" on CNN kikd of implied that since the plane wasn't on fire while they were in the air, that some kind of criminal negligence or something could be afoot.

Seems though that they simply had an emergency and the pilot did the best he could. I know that's ridiculously naieve and simple, but seriously.

a reply to: KansasGirl

Investigations are handled differently in European countries. They run parallel investigations, with one investigating the accident itself, and the other investigating whether there was criminal negligence or a crime involved. Whether charges are filed or not depends largely on the result of the accident investigation results, and the frequency varies from country to country. Just because a criminal investigation is launched, doesn't mean that there's evidence of a crime having occurred.

a reply to: Zaphod58
Zaph if you look at the 3rd picture put up by The Peacemaker you can see the leading edge appears partly deployed and the trailing edge is down a few units. They dont appear all the way down but they definitely aren't retracted either. Anecdotally I saw a report where the pilot is alleged to have said that the landing was at normal approach speed. However the bounce and porpoising would suggest either too higher speed or his sink rate or glide slope was wrong. This is entirely understandable if he didn't have full control of the aircraft.

a reply to: thebozeian

I'm wondering how much of that was planned, and how much was lack of pressure to hold them up/ impact forces pushing them down.

Passenger Dmitry Khlebushkin is rapidly becoming the face of the passengers in Russia, and not in a good way. Video shows him walking out of the airport, with a carry on bag in his hand, after demanding a refund and complaining about his treatment by airline staff. It's being reported by Russian media that only three people behind where he was sitting survived.

Meanwhile, flight attendants Maxim Moiseev and Tatyana Kasatkina are emerging as heroes. Maxim Mosieev had worked as a flight attendant only 15 months. He was working the rear of the aircraft, and when he couldn't get the door open, it's being reported that he stayed and shoved passengers forward trying to get them to the front of the aircraft where they could evacuate. He is the only crew member to die in the accident. Tatyana Kasatkina opened the forward door, despite internal communications being barely operable, and began grabbing passengers by the collar and shoving them out onto the slide.

www.dailymail.co.uk...

a reply to: Zaphod58

its easy to pass judgement, nobody knows how anyone would react in a similar situation.
People act weirdly when in shock.

I still think the emergency response was inadequate.
If an aicraft has to return asap for an emergency landing without coms, you roll everything as a precaution. They had just one firefighting vehicle on the aircraft during evacuation, thats not acceptable.

a reply to: mightmight

You don't roll trucks for comms out. Loss of comms isn't an emergency, and all indications right now are that they said they were returning, but didn't declare an emergency until the transponder went to 7700 on final approach.

A few years ago I remember a plane caught fire on the runway, I think in Vegas but I could be wrong. It was in the US, and on the news there were a bunch of videos of the evacuation being slowed down by people trying to get their phones out so they could record (gotta get those Facebook likes) and trying to get their overhead bags. People in the back were screaming at them to wise the # up and get off the plane. In that case, luckily, everyone got out.

The airlines should implement a policy that if you do anything to impede an evacuation, they will press charges against you. The families of the deceased and injured should surely pursue something. I don't know laws in Russia but it seems like a pretty obvious reckless endangerment charge. I won't blame the crew. They're doing everything they can under extreme conditions with the best of intentions.

a reply to: face23785

There were three. British in Vegas, American in Chicago, and a charter airline in Florida. Both American and BA had people grabbing bags and taking pictures and video.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
Passenger Dmitry Khlebushkin is rapidly becoming the face of the passengers in Russia, and not in a good way. Video shows him walking out of the airport, with a carry on bag in his hand, after demanding a refund and complaining about his treatment by airline staff. It's being reported by Russian media that only three people behind where he was sitting survived.

Meanwhile, flight attendants Maxim Moiseev and Tatyana Kasatkina are emerging as heroes. Maxim Mosieev had worked as a flight attendant only 15 months. He was working the rear of the aircraft, and when he couldn't get the door open, it's being reported that he stayed and shoved passengers forward trying to get them to the front of the aircraft where they could evacuate. He is the only crew member to die in the accident. Tatyana Kasatkina opened the forward door, despite internal communications being barely operable, and began grabbing passengers by the collar and shoving them out onto the slide.

www.dailymail.co.uk...

Regarding Maxim, the flight attendant working the back of the plane, who didn't make it: why would he try to open the door back there?? Wasn't it pretty clear that the back of the plane, outside, was on raging fire?

a reply to: KansasGirl

Because the fire outside was spread out somewhat. Passengers would have at least a chance at surviving, compared to being trapped on the aircraft. It boiled down to some chance vs no chance.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: KansasGirl

Because the fire outside was spread out somewhat. Passengers would have at least a chance at surviving, compared to being trapped on the aircraft. It boiled down to some chance vs no chance.

What do you mean by the fire was spread out somewhat, and how would they have known that from the inside?

What a terrible decision to have to make. Well, I guess it was made for him, since he couldn't get it open, but what a horrendous situation. That fire must have really spread quickly once it broke through to the cabin, since the lady flight attendant reported that the cabin wasn't yet on fire when the plane came to a stop.

Have you heard anything about what went wrong? Have they confirmed that they didn't have control to the flaps and couldn't slow down, or other reasons they landed they way they did?

a reply to: KansasGirl

One of the first things you do when you stop, after a landing like that, is look out the window. That's how they know if it's safe to open that door or not. The fire inside the fuselage was trapped by the fuselage, meaning there was nowhere for it to spread out to. The fire outside had plenty of room to expand around the aircraft, potentially leaving gaps people could try to escape through.

So far all that has been said is there was a lightning strike.

Any pilots know if air brakes and flaps are the same thing? And if so, my gosh...are you telteling me those little tiny onefoot long flaps on a 20 foot plus wide wing really break the speed all that much?

a reply to: AlexandrosTheGreat

Spoilers or speed breaks are not the same as flaps. They're not so much for slowing the aircraft as they are for breaking up the airflow over the wing, and "spoiling" the wings ability to generate lift. They do help some with slowing the aircraft, but the bigger factor is keeping the plane on the ground after landing.

In regards to the rear of the aircraft not being used for evacuation, who knows that first initial heavy landing prior to it bouncing back up also may of also hindered the deployement of any slides. There's just too many unknowns as to why it may of not been possible. I know one thing though if I have to evacuate an aircraft and someone is sodding about trying to get their bags I'm either dragging them with me or I'm pushing them out the way

Both recorders have been recovered, with the FDR showing significant damage due to the fire. They are being downloaded and examined. Regulators say the aircraft suffered a lightning strike at about 7,000 feet.

www.flightglobal.com...