Russian airliner lands in flames

“The Flightradar24 tracking service showed that the plane had circled twice over Moscow before making an emergency landing after about 45 minutes.“
If aware of smoke/fire, sure hope not
 
Not good news for the Sukhoi Superjet!
 
3ea09f9c63fb8acc213788b61b808fd2.jpg


https://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-plane-idUSKCN1SB0IK

Eek.
 
Purports to be video of landing

Im not completely convinced it is; will takedown if disproven

 
Video posted on a Russian news site shows that the jet bounced the landing. The impact on the second touchdown some how ruptured the fuel tanks.
 
I can't believe that some passengers took the time to grab their luggage before exiting the aircraft. Even a small delay could've cost lives.
 
I can't believe that some passengers took the time to grab their luggage before exiting the aircraft. Even a small delay could've cost lives.

The normal distribution tells you that on a commercial airliner with 50+ passengers, there will be more than a handful of idiots.
 
I can't believe that some passengers took the time to grab their luggage before exiting the aircraft. Even a small delay could've cost lives.

37 survivors, with 41 reported killed in this accident.
RIP...
 
landing weights... ?

Every airliner is certified to land at its max takeoff weight. The fire occurred when the fuel tanks were ruptured by a very hard landing and follow on bounce.
 
Seems to take a while for ARFF to get there.
 
Every airliner is certified to land at its max takeoff weight. The fire occurred when the fuel tanks were ruptured by a very hard landing and follow on bounce.
The vast majority are not "certified" to land at MTOW; that's why they sometimes fly around in circles (or, on older ships, dump fuel) if there's an issue that isn't a critical emergency.
Edit: This does not mean that they cannot be landed safely with a full load of fuel, but it means that all margins of error are gone.
 
Last edited:
This isn't even close to correct.

Let me edit it. Every airliner I have flown is certified to land at its max takeoff weight. That includes the 727, DC10, L1011, 737, 757, 767, A330 and C440. It was a certification requirement in the US that they be able to do so. Yes those weights are above the normal maximum landing weight but there is no problem doing it. A logbook entry is required after a landing above normal weight. All margins for safety are not gone. In fact you have large margins verses a rejected takeoff at the same weights.
You can even land single engine at max weight which usually means a restricted flap setting and higher approach speed.
 
Last edited:
The vast majority are not "certified" to land at MTOW; that's why they sometimes fly around in circles (or, on older ships, dump fuel) if there's an issue that isn't a critical emergency.
Edit: This does not mean that they cannot be landed safely with a full load of fuel, but it means that all margins of error are gone.

not exactly. it comes from far 25.25

maximum weights.

(2) The highest weight at which compliance with each applicable structural loading and flight requirement is shown, except that for airplanes equipped with standby power rocket engines the maximum weight must not be more than the highest weight established in accordance with appendix E of this part; or

so an aircraft must be able to take landing loads at max weight with the safety factor. no it is not certified to land at max weight, but it must be able to land at max weight without damage to the structure. assuming normal landing certification loads.
 
It’s time to start imposing stiff fines or manslaughter charges to those grabbing bags, taking selfies or otherwise impeding an emergency aircraft evacuation. Seems to be plenty of photo/video evidence of those carrying bags or phones. The flying public will just never get it. GTFO the burning aircraft, NOW! Just because you have extra time doesn't mean everyone behind you does. If you’re lucky you get 90 seconds to get EVERYONE off the jet. MOVE IT!
 
Was there smoke coming out of it on short final?

That is definitely way beyond a "bounced" landing. I am wondering if they were really fast on final.
 
The narrative and their equivalent of preliminary report was delivered by MAK to Rosaviatsiya, who then posted it with its own directives to the air carriers (mostly about revising the sim programs). Here's one copy if anyone's interested:
https://bmpd.livejournal.com/3646419.html

Here's my translation of the pertinent part:

"From altitude 260 ft, acft started to settle below the glideslope. At alt 180 ft a TAWS warning came on. At 180 ft the throttle was added (...) that made the IAS grow at the time of crossing the rwy threshold to 164 knots, at alt 16 ft to 170 kts.
"After adding the throttle, the Capt. made several large size (to full stop) opposite deflections of control stick, according to commands of TAWS, which lead to changes of pitch angle from +6 deg to -2 deg.
"First touch-down occurred 900 m from threshold at speed 158 kts with 2.55 g load, with following jump altitude of 6 ft. In DIRECT MODE, automated extension of spoilers is not implemented, and crew did not command a manual extension."

So, the key problem was that when TAWS barked RETARD! RETARD!, the Captain suddenly and inexplicably pulled the sidestick full aft, and caused the ship to balloon. Seeing what he's done, he then immediately dialed full nose down, thus starting the porpoising.
 
So, the key problem was that when TAWS barked RETARD! RETARD!, the Captain suddenly and inexplicably pulled the sidestick full aft, and caused the ship to balloon.

Primitive transference? Was he in the right hand seat?
 
Primitive transference? Was he in the right hand seat?
Is primitive transference actually a thing at the level these professionals operate?

My first airplane was set up with throttle on the left, stick in the middle (for the right hand). I also put some 50 or 60 hours into Remos GX, where I held the stick with the left, and throttle with the right (there was a second throttle for those who wanted them reversed, but there wasn't second brake or flaps switch, so it made more sense to use the left hand on the stick). In my Mooney, I land with both hands. I realize that it may delay going on the throttle for a go-around, but it helps against unintentional aileron inputs. Either way, I never thought much about the reversal. After all, thousands of CFIs and FOs fly right seat by the day and left seat on weekends, and nothing happens to them.
 
I fear that in a stressful situation, any one of us could be a victim of it.
 
Back
Top