Russian Superjet 100 Crashes During Demo Flight, Killing All Aboard 339
First time accepted submitter Prokur writes "A brand new Russian Sukhoi Superjet 100 airliner on a demonstration flight with 37 passengers (mostly future clients and journalists) and 8 Russian crew members on board went missing after it took off from an airport in Jakarta. After an extensive search, rescuers concluded, based on the widespread debris field on the side of a ridge, that the aircraft directly impacted the rocky side of Mount Salak and there was 'no chance of survival.'"
Probably lost the sale, too! (Score:5, Funny)
That can't be good for sales. If I was buying an airliner, I'd have to pass on this one.
Re:Probably lost the sale, too! (Score:5, Insightful)
Depends on why it crashed - at the moment it looks like Controlled Flight Into Terrain (CFIT).
Also, crashes early on doesn't necessarily mean the death of the program, the Airbus A330 suffered a crash during its development, but has gone on to sell over 1,000 examples since.
Re:Probably lost the sale, too! (Score:5, Insightful)
The initial reports I saw on this stated they requested an immediate descent from 10k feet to 6k feet moments before they disappeared from radar.
One news report stated a farmer saw the plane fly low above him with "the engine" running. It could have been a single engine failure, which should not have been catastrophic. He may have only said "the engine" because he couldn't tell from the sound if it were one or two engines running.
I'm sure the pilots must have known the terrain.
Since they were suppose to be out on a 50 minute flight, they should have still been climbing.
I would suspect the possibility of a loss of cabin pressure. Procedure for that is to put on oxygen masks, and immediately descend.
Some people don't handle the air above 6,800 feet very well.
If their altimeter wasn't accurate, they could have been much higher,and began suffering symptoms of hypoxia faster. The immediate descent could have done exactly what you said, controlled flight into terrain.
We'll learn more from the flight data recorders, when they're recovered and analyzed. It may have been pilot error, equipment malfunction, or both.
Re:Probably lost the sale, too! (Score:5, Informative)
From what I have read, the descent to 6000ft was made on the prior demo flight as well, as part of the sightseeing - the weather was poor, so they would have wanted to get under the weather to see the sights.
Re:Probably lost the sale, too! (Score:4, Insightful)
It was a demo flight, they are (were) shopping the aircraft around various airlines looking for buyers. The pilots would not be "familiar" with the terrain. This was not a public transport flight, it was a private flight.
These demo flights operate in, lets say, a manner designed to impress the passengers.
A flight down low up an incredibly scenic valley, is one way of impressing your passengers. Miss judging the space needed to get out of that valley, that's not quite so impressive :(
Re:Probably lost the sale, too! (Score:4, Insightful)
I would assume the pilot would have familiarized himself with the terrain, since that helps to know where to fly to.
Impressing the passengers ... well ... That was probably lost somewhere between "look at the view" and [smack into the mountain]. It'll probably significantly impede their chances of getting a signed contract, since the signers were on board.
I think that's one of those unspoken rules of business. "Don't kill your customers before they pay."
Re:Probably lost the sale, too! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Probably lost the sale, too! (Score:5, Insightful)
I doubt the pilots did knew the terrain that well. They were Russian pilots demoing a jet in a foreign country, so it would not have been an area they fly over regularly. They were touring.
I believe they were trying to show off, and here's why I think that. One of the news sites had a video (looked like Google Earth) showing where the plane took off, and where it crashed. The mountain it crashed into is this really isolated and abrupt thing sticking way up out of lower elevation terrain. It was very clear from that imagery that the plane took off and made a bee line for those scenic mountains for impressive views for those on board. I think the pilot tried to do a close fly by and did not realize just how steep that mountain was (it is practically vertical where the plane impacted).
Again, if you look at the topography, it is clear that if the plane had some sort of engine trouble, especially up at 10,000 feet, there was much lower elevation land they could have easily headed toward instead of happening to drop on that isolated mountain.
Remember, this was flying around for the sake of showing off a plane - a sightseeing tour that they wanted those on board to have a memorable impression of. Thus they would have headed towards something like that mountain to give the passengers something more interesting to look at than boring cloud tops or flat land.
Re:Probably lost the sale, too! (Score:5, Informative)
The terrain they chose is basically known for having an inordinately high amount of plane crashes, mostly due to the fact the weather in the area can change very rapidly.
The local newspaper stated that the jet wanted a flight level below the peak of the mountain they impacted, which is generally considered a bad idea if you're a pilot not familiar with the terrain.
(yes, I live in Jakarta)
Re:Probably lost the sale, too! (Score:5, Funny)
Remember, this was flying around for the sake of showing off a plane - a sightseeing tour that they wanted those on board to have a memorable impression of.
In Soviet Russia, terrain have memorable impression of YOU!!!
Re: (Score:3)
One news report stated a farmer saw the plane fly low above him with "the engine" running. It could have been a single engine failure, which should not have been catastrophic. He may have only said "the engine" because he couldn't tell from the sound if it were one or two engines running.
Come on, who expects a farmer to know these things?
I'm sure the pilots must have known the terrain.
Why? They were test pilots from Sukhoi who flew in for the demonstration flights.
Since they were suppose to be out on a 50 minute flight, they should have still been climbing.
And that's why they requested a descent?
Sorry, your armchair speculation does not add to understanding why this tragedy has occurred.
Re:Probably lost the sale, too! (Score:5, Informative)
One news report stated a farmer saw the plane fly low above him with "the engine" running. It could have been a single engine failure, which should not have been catastrophic. He may have only said "the engine" because he couldn't tell from the sound if it were one or two engines running.
I'm sure the pilots must have known the terrain.
I would suspect the possibility of a loss of cabin pressure. Procedure for that is to put on oxygen masks, and immediately descend.
Some people don't handle the air above 6,800 feet very well.
If their altimeter wasn't accurate, they could have been much higher,and began suffering symptoms of hypoxia faster. The immediate descent could have done exactly what you said, controlled flight into terrain.
I work for one of the major aerospace companies (one of Sukhoi's competitors with this jet, actually), and this post is very uninformed. Nothing in the reports indicate that it was an engine failure, and if so the pilots probably would've raised a distress signal.
It's also pretty much impossible for it to be a loss of cabin pressure. People handle 6,800 feet perfectly fine - in fact, regular flights are pressurised to an equivalent of 8,000 feet, and you don't see people suffering from hypoxia in most regular flights.
As has been mentioned, this was probably a demonstration flight intended to impress the customers. There was a first flight earlier that day which did the same thing, and when they do that, they turn off the ground proximity warnings to avoid constant alarms while they're performing the pass. However reports indicate that the visibility became much worse for the second flight, and if those proximity warnings have been accidentally left off from the first flight earlier in the day, they may have had no warning of a collision with the mountain. Of course, none of these speculations can be certain until the final report has been released. This is a tragic loss, and my condolences go out to the friends and relatives of the passengers and crew.
Re:Probably lost the sale, too! (Score:4, Informative)
I'm not sure where you got "no lower than 10,000 feet". It should be "no higher than 10,000 feet". You want to increase the cabin pressure closer to sea level. People with health problems can have problems over 5,000 feet or so.
People that sick shouldn't be passengers, nevermind pilots.
A pilot should get down to 10K so she or he doesn't get incapacitated, and then only go lower if safe to do so.
The safety of the flight takes precedence. If it is a choice between going below a minimum safe altitude (given terrain and other factors) and a passenger having a health issue - safety of the flight comes first. If a passenger dies that is sad, but much more tragic if everyone does.
First priority "Fly the plane". Getting to 10K is needed so you can keep doing that. All else is secondary.
Re: (Score:3)
The A330 crash happened on a test flight, while the oft mentioned A320 crash happened at a small airshow, not the Paris Airshow.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Probably lost the sale, too! (Score:4, Funny)
Not necessarily. Sukhoi could call for something known as the "do over," where, under international convention, everyone pretends the first attempt and resulting catastrophic failure never occurred.
Re: (Score:2)
You're right... I'd much rather have one of those new planes that can fly right through a mountain.
Re: (Score:2)
37 passengers (mostly future clients and journalists)
Those executives should have known better than to go themselves. Sending an management lackey [youtube.com] to participate in demos is much safer. :P
Re:Probably lost the sale, too! (Score:5, Insightful)
Right. Much better in the days when the US was using the sturdy Challenger and Columbia...
Re:Probably lost the sale, too! (Score:5, Funny)
Sir! As a patriot, I want to be incinerated in a space vehicle made by my home country!
Re:Probably lost the sale, too! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I mean, if you actually were trying to imply the Russians weren't as good as space flight as other countries, why, that would just be absurd. You can't possibly mean such a thing. Right?
Re:Probably lost the sale, too! (Score:5, Informative)
I'm not sure where you're sitting but... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_spaceflight-related_accidents_and_incidents [wikipedia.org]
"About two percent of the manned launch/reentry attempts have killed their crew, with Soyuz and the Shuttle having almost the same death percentage rates."
Looks like it's 2 to 2 on fatal space missions and even money on number of deaths as well.
Re:Probably lost the sale, too! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Probably lost the sale, too! (Score:4, Informative)
The main difference is that Soyuz is a modular system, with the unmanned cargo booster also being part of The same series - most people compare only the manned missions, when the Shuttle has to always fly manned whether the cargo requires it or not.
Re: (Score:2)
the Russians have a better track record at sending people into space and getting them back alive
Do you have any data to back that up? The Russians have a track record for crappy maintenance records and risky procedures which result in a large number of unique accidents. I've always wondered if the Russian space policy largely consists of "aw, f_ck it. warp 9!" or if they are just accident prone.
Among these:
* Drowned during water recovery training
* Fire in low-pressure chamber
* Crew exposed to vacuum of space
* gas poisoning on board
* fire in launch vehicle
* eye injury from Mir exercise equipment
* fire
Re: (Score:3)
Perhaps they just spent less resources on the thing. Planning for almost everything is much more expensive than just planning for a lot.
Re:Probably lost the sale, too! (Score:5, Interesting)
It's worth mentioning that Boeing is a major partner in the Superet program, providing consultation, manufacturing, design and technical ability. They are more than a subcontractor, they signed a long term partnership for the project.
So it's worth holding off on the "its Russian" comments.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And why is it important to have astronauts in space? Symbolism, romance and sword-rattling are not acceptable answers.
Because an astronaut on Mars with a shovel can do more in 10 minutes than two robotic rovers can do in a year.
Re:Probably lost the sale, too! (Score:5, Insightful)
Except that for the mass of astronauts + a crew cabin + life support for a year + fuel to get all of the above back to Earth, you could send up an entire robotic demolition crew complete with RTGs to power them for decades.
I'm not against manned space exploration, but until we have better engine technology it will be a huge waste of resources.
Re: (Score:3)
Except that for the mass of astronauts + a crew cabin + life support for a year + fuel to get all of the above back to Earth, ...
You don't need fuel for the trip back. Just send astronauts with terminal illnesses and less than a year to live. I'm sure many (most?) would be willing to go die in Mars.
Re:Probably lost the sale, too! (Score:5, Interesting)
You don't need fuel for the trip back. Just send astronauts with terminal illnesses and less than a year to live. I'm sure many (most?) would be willing to go die in Mars.
I'm perfectly healthy and happy, with a wife and two wonderful daughters. And I would go in a second, no questions asked. I'd even be content with knowing that I'll die of radiation poisoning on the way, and have my dead body crashed into a martian crater, just in order to learn from it and make the trip safer for the next guy.
Re:Probably lost the sale, too! (Score:5, Insightful)
Dear sir, what you need to do is not go to Mars. What you need to do is ask your family what they think about the idea. And then get your head examined. Perhaps in reverse order.
It's not up to us to judge you, though. Lots of people do really stupid things that eventually get them killed, like this guy [youtube.com]. I personally think you have a responsibility towards your daughters, and to some extent also towards your wife, but hey, people get divorced and move to another continent. So it's not as if losing a father is unheard of.
Re: (Score:3)
There are many things more important than life, and I'd say exploring another planet is definitely on that list. There are billions of people on Earth; it will go on perfectly without minus a few people that go on to become immortalized heroes.
Re: (Score:3)
I personally think you have a responsibility towards your daughters, and to some extent also towards your wife
He volunteered to sacrifice his life, if need be, to make the world a better place for his daughters and wife (and mine and yours). I can respect that.
Re:Probably lost the sale, too! (Score:5, Funny)
What's the word I'm looking for?
Married?
Re:Probably lost the sale, too! (Score:5, Funny)
I suspect that his wife logged in to his account and posted that.
Re:Probably lost the sale, too! (Score:4, Funny)
Just send already-dead astronauts. You will need to launch a lot less consumables, life support, shielding, and soft-landing equipment. The science return will be impacted, but not by much.
Re: (Score:3)
an astronaut on Mars with a shovel can do more in 10 minutes than two robotic rovers can do in a year.
Wow. NASA's budget really went to the crapper. Not so long ago, astronauts got entire suits.
Re:Probably lost the sale, too! (Score:4, Insightful)
Wait... why exactly do we need to dig a hole on Mars? Because it's *not* there!
Re: (Score:3)
We wouldn't be sending unwilling participants. We wouldn't be coercing them either. There are probably people that would jump on the chance. Most of those people probably would have some sort of terminal illness. All in all, if we want to send someone and the participants know the cost and want to go anyway, why not?
Re: (Score:3)
My point is that the exploration of Earth was made by heroes willing to risk their lives and often without any hope of returning. My point is in the first people who sailed from Indonesia to Peru, or who crossed the Aleutian land bridge, or who struck out into the wilderness of northern Europe after being driven from Rome. Exploration and colonization is risky. We should be willing to take those risks if we want the rewards.
The best way to explore Mars with human beings is to make it a one-way trip. [slashdot.org] Ther [washingtonpost.com]
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"My point is that the exploration of Earth was made by heroes willing to risk their lives and often without any hope of returning."
I here that a lot when discussing Mars, but people seem to over look a tiny factor:
There is Air everywhere on earth. Three is food everywhere on earth, and there is water almost everywhere on the earth.
Columbus did not need to bring all his food, water and air for the entire duration. Also, he went home.
If mars was habitable, you would have a point. Also, we would have a shit to
Re: (Score:3)
Is getting a permanent station a worth goal? yes, absolutely. Are we ready for that? no.
>> puts on high pitched space loony voice.
But all we have to do is send Arnold Schwarzennegger up to restart the vast alien pumps that used to provide air and water for Mars. Then we're golden.
Re:Probably lost the sale, too! (Score:4, Informative)
On the other hand, Spirit took three years to move as far as I walked yesterday morning.
I notice in the wiki a mention of one rover going three miles in one year. Which is less than I walk every morning (what can I say, yesterday was special, I went a couple of extra laps around the park).
And it should be noted that both rovers together, didn't quite manage a distance that I could make in a day, walking. Two days, walking with a backpack.
Yah, those rovers did some good work. And lasted amazingly well over the years. But eight years to cover the ground that two astronauts could cover in two or three days (assuming they didn't have something like the Lunar Rover to ferry them around)? A team of six astronauts sent to Mars for a ten month stay would get us more information than we'll get in the next 50 years of sending unmanned rovers (mostly because if a man sees a damp spot on the ground, he can walk over and investigate. If the rover wasn't built to dig around a damp spot on the ground, you need to design a new one and deliver it before you can find out why the ground was damp there...)
Re:Probably lost the sale, too! (Score:4, Insightful)
Symbolism, romance and sword-rattling are not acceptable answers.
Why not?
Re:Probably lost the sale, too! (Score:4, Insightful)
Symbolism, romance and sword-rattling are not acceptable answers.
Why not?
Because if those things are what you want, you can get them quite effectively from a paperback book.
If you are hyper-rich and want to spend tens of billions of dollars on your own space program, of course, then you are welcome to do it however you like -- but if you are spending other peoples' tax money, then you need to be accountable and spend that money in a wise and cost-effective manner, at the very least. Your sense of adventure does not entitle you to waste their money.
Re: (Score:3)
To be clear, my argument wasn't that space exploration is worthless, only that if we are going to explore space using public dollars, we need to do so by practical means -- not put humans into space simply because it is "romantic" to have them there, as the previous poster suggested.
I feel the same way about manned spaceflight today--the only good reason to explore the universe is for the adventure, because it's exciting, interesting, inspiring, and enlightening. In short, because it makes us better. And I see no better way to meet that objective than through manned spaceflight.
It's fine to feel that way -- just don't expect other people to spend their money to fund your emotional well-being.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
To keep pushing the boundaries. Long term, we need to leave Earth, we need to get humans in some survivable form on other worlds and eventually out of the solar system. We don't have just the sun exploding to worry about. Natural disasters, unexpected celestial events. Heck, we have companies looking into trying to move asteroids into Earth orbit for mining. Imagine if we had a Fukushima/B.P. incident with one of those? The sooner we can get the tech tested feasible the better in case we need it.
Take
Re:Probably lost the sale, too! (Score:4, Insightful)
Wrong. Those are good reasons to have astronauts in space. They're just shitty and unacceptable reasons to force other people to pay to have astronauts in space.
Re: (Score:3)
Russian mafia take control,
"You wanna buy this plane, or do I haveta make you fly in it".
Even better.
"Tovarish Ivchenko, I hear you want to disappear. Buy me a plane, I'll crash it against a mountain and say you were inside."
"Comrade Manof, you are an enlightened member of our society. I shall even give you several corpses to chose from."
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, they're "mostly past" clients now. When the plane took off, they thought they were mostly future.
Don't we all think that?
Repeat Customers? (Score:3, Funny)
I hope Sukhoi wasn't counting on repeat customers to make their sales figures this year...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
They still have Aeroflot to fall back on...
I remember an old David Letterman's top ten list of ways to improve Aeroflot -- more Aero and less flot!
Re:Repeat Customers? (Score:4, Informative)
Ahh the good old Habsheim Crash, wondered when that would get trotted out.
The Air France pilot of that particular aircraft was too low, too slow and untrained for such a stunt. He flew below the height of surrounding obstacles with his engines at or near idle, and then blamed the spool up time as the engines being "unresponsive". He put the aircraft into a dangerous situation and other people paid for his mistakes with their lives.
The pilot was an idiot, there was nothing wrong with the aircraft that caused that crash. Sure there was irregularities with the handling of the flight recorders afterward, but nothing has ever been proven in that particular conspiracy theory.
Re: (Score:2)
Ahh the good old Habsheim Crash, wondered when that would get trotted out.
The Air France pilot of that particular aircraft was too low, too slow and untrained for such a stunt. He flew below the height of surrounding obstacles with his engines at or near idle, and then blamed the spool up time as the engines being "unresponsive". He put the aircraft into a dangerous situation and other people paid for his mistakes with their lives.
The pilot was an idiot, there was nothing wrong with the aircraft that caused that crash. Sure there was irregularities with the handling of the flight recorders afterward, but nothing has ever been proven in that particular conspiracy theory.
All of that is true, but beside the point. Whatever the cause, it still put a stain on the program - no one is excited to buy an aircraft that just crashed, whatever the cause. Eventually the program did recover, though, which may give some hope to Sukhoi - assuming it is determined that this was pilot error/controlled flight into terrain rather than a failure of the aircraft.
Re:Repeat Customers? (Score:4, Insightful)
Nope, it didn't even put a stain on the program - annual orders for the A320 series (A320 and A321 as follows
1987 58,
1988 116,
1989 146,
1990 300
The Habsheim crash occured in 1988 - no recovery was needed, as no order slump occured.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
AA Flight 587 - the one where the vertical tail fin failed well in excess of its certificated ultimate load (150% maximum load, and maximum load should never be reached in an aircrafts life anyway)? I always choose to fly on aircraft that match or exceed safety requirements.
AF Flight 447 - the one where three crew members couldn't get laid in a womens prison while holding a handful of pardons? You can believe all the hatchet jobs you want, but the Airbus FBW system was not at issue in this one, and its am
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe not, but they have a new one. From Wikipedia:
9 May 2012 - Crashes during a demonstration flight in Indonesia. No survivors were found.
10 May 2012 - Pakistan is interested in purchasing 8 new SSJ-100 planes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Superjet_100#Timeline [wikipedia.org]
In Russia... (Score:2, Funny)
In Russia...plane crashes you
Weather (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Either way, apparently there's no terrain avoidance alarm, or the one they have doesn't work.
Re: (Score:2)
I think on civilian jets that works off a radar altimeter that looks straight down, so it gives little warning about an approaching mountain.
Re:Weather (Score:5, Funny)
That's because in Soviet Russia, terrain avoidance alarm notifies mountain
Re: (Score:2)
Hard sell gone wrong. (Score:5, Funny)
"Are you sure you don't want to buy our planes? Very well. If we have no further business, our aircraft is now on its final descent. Don't bother fastening your seat belts."
movie? (Score:2)
Re:movie? (Score:5, Funny)
on the other hand, if they were being forced to watch an in-flight Jennifer Aniston movie, then it's just merciful...
How dare you judge her? I mean what are you? You think you're some kind of, like, angel here? No, you're just this penny-stealing... wanna-be criminal... man.
At Call Center Training (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
In the 2000s companies learned that death didn't matter, they would simply buy a congresscritter and get the law changed so it's illegal to talk about it. See: the beef industry.
What "freedom" is the corporate sycophant Tea Party talking about again?!?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Most Tea Partiers (like me) hate corporations. It's pretty much why the thing formed in the first place (first to help Ron Paul in 2007, and then to protest the bailout of corporations by Bush).
Sadly the Tea Party Congressmen just voted 71% in favor of the CISPA spying-by-corporations act, so maybe the TP has lost its was over the years. Hijacked by the Republicans.
Re: (Score:2)
Sadly the Tea Party ... hijacked by the Republicans.
How ironic, in a man bites dog kind of way.
Re: (Score:2)
More of a parasite kills host sort of thing....
Re: (Score:3)
You might want to get a new source. The one your using is _more_ broken then Fox news.
Re: (Score:2)
In the 80's they told us that Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid.
So I think that sufficiently covers it.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re: (Score:2)
The entire country is corrupt, decrepit and dysfunctional, not just Putin's much vaunted "national champions".
The corrupt little dictator knows that the country he presides over is falling over. Which is why he's so busy turkey-slapping anybody who looks like they could ever be a friend of Russia.
With another twelve years of this thug, Russia is fucked.
When I first heard about the jet crash, I was wondering if any of the people on the plane were political enemies of Putin.
So (Score:2)
Controlled flight into fixed terrain (Score:5, Insightful)
It is likely that the primary cause of this was pilot error and what we have is controlled flight into fixed terrain. Demonstration flights are designed to wow the prospective customers and it seems likely that they where attempting to do a bit of sightseeing. After all, commercial aviation is usually boring because you are spending hours and hours going straight and level with only takeoff and landing being somewhat interesting. They where taking the local sightseeing tour to spice things up a bit, which is why they requested the lower altitude. You don't go lower without an emergency, unless you intend to land or look at something, and by all the accounts I've heard there was no emergency declared and there are few places to land around there.
The pilot may have been a great test pilot with lots of time in the aircraft he was flying, but I seriously doubt he has a lot of experience with the local terrain and weather conditions. Flying 500' from the tops of mountains can be a difficult thing on a clear day, but you add the tropical rains, possible winds driving air over the mountains and the risks go up. Bush pilots avoid these situations in much slower aircraft because it is too easy to run out of room faster than you can turn around or climb, this was a much faster less maneuverable aircraft than a C208 or Caravan. Further you have the issue of turbulence, up and down drafts that are common issues with mountain flying. These things can make maintaining altitude unexpectedly difficult when trying to maneuver. Smart pilots avoid unnecessary risks, this guy didn't because he was trying to sell airplanes. His requested altitude was ONLY 500' above the existing terrain in limited visibility, I'm pretty much going to call this pilot irresponsible for taking such risks.
It is possible a mechanical problem may have contributed to this, but unless we are talking about a MAJOR mechanical issue that made the aircraft totally un-flyable (an extremely rare situation), the primary cause of this accident is surely going to be pilot error. Even in the face of a major mechanical failure they are going to fault him for 1. flying too low , 2. Choosing to fly around dangerous terrain, 3. Choosing to fly in limited visibility where he had to maintain visual orientation to remain safe.
Chances are we have yet again another case of human error, stemming from lack of wise judgement. But that is no surprise because this is the most common killer in aviation with mechanical failure being order of magnitudes less likely.
Armageddon (Score:3)
Lev Andropov: It's stuck, yes?
Watts: Back off! You don't know the components!
Lev Andropov: [annoyed] Components. American components, Russian Components, ALL MADE IN TAIWAN!
Here's a blog post by an Indonesian pilot (Score:3)
http://www.thejakartaglobe.com/newsletter/superjet-disappears-south-of-jakarta-notes-from-an-aviation-consultant/517078 [thejakartaglobe.com]
Notes from an aviation consultant on the area in question and why it seemed like poor planning on the Russian crew's part.
Wrong (Score:5, Funny)
No, just wrong. They took care of that problem by making sure the potential customers were in the plane, as the summary says.
Re:Competition? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
From a previous article I read, Boeing is one of the companies that had a hand in designing it.
Re: (Score:2)
No In Soviet Russia Mountain crashes into you!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, go back to the Cold War and relive it for old times sake? The U.S. stopped caring about Russia when the Berlin Wall came down, the year 1989. Now the only concern with Russia is how far Putin will go to become Fuehrer for Life. If he starts sporting a cheesey small mustache. then we'll have to take him seriously.
Re:A triumph! (Score:5, Informative)
Reminds me of the braindead comments we saw here in Indiana after last year's State Fair stage collapse when it was revealed that no one had to inspect the stage rigging.
My favorite was the one that said "why does it matter if some guy inspects the rigging." Well, for one thing it's not "some guy" but someone that has education and experience with such engineering problems. Secondly it's because people could die if it is wrong. Even when given a practical demonstration people are so ideologically motivated that they can't see why it should be done. You should of seen that idiot Mitch "fuck all regulations" Daniels backtrack when this was revealed and and people wondered why common sense wasn't followed and someone with experience didn't look over the setup.
Re:A triumph! (Score:5, Informative)
You're an idiot. [wikipedia.org] The plane was certified by numerous agencies, and has been flying commercially since April of 2011.
It is certified as meeting the relevant airworthiness and safety requirements by the Interstate Aviation Committee [wikipedia.org] and the European Aviation Safety Agency [europa.eu]; The EASA certification is more or less identical in procedure and requirement to our own FAA requirements.
This has nothing to do with "insufficient safety regulations and inspection" in Russia, the plane passed all the same certifications it would need to pass here in the USA, and in fact, the certificate that was awarded by EASA may very well be valid in the US, as there is some reciprocity in these certification processes.
Initial reports suggest that it was CFIT, and they flew right into the side of the mountain; unless you've got access to the black box already, maybe you should hold off on hollow political posturing until an understanding can be reached as to what actually happened?
Re: (Score:3)
Funny, I didn't realize that the European Aviation Safety Agency was a Russian regulatory agency. Or is it that Russians are so corrupt that they subverted the Europeans as well and just purchased a certification? And if that's the case, what point having regulatory agencies at all, if they're so easily subverted and worked around?
Your point would have
Re:A triumph! (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's perform a little experiment. Go get a grant for a couple hundred grand. Don't worry, I'll wait.
Next, go out and buy the most modern automobile you can, with as many safety features as you can find. Only restrictions are "must be street-legal" and "must be available to the general public". No military tanks, no experimental Google self-driving cars, nothing like that.
Now get in, find yourself a nice bit of highway. Get up to 60mph/100kmph or so, standard "cruising speed".
Now point yourself straight at the nearest immovable object. A nice, big tree, or perhaps a brick wall.
If your car didn't magically seize control of the vehicle, apply the brakes and take evasive action as necessary, I suppose it must not have had "sufficient safety mechanisms". But, last I checked, "the pilots tried to turn the airplane into a dirtplane" is not something a safety feature can always stop. A good warning system can alert the pilots that they're about to hit a mountain, but even then, the pilots may not have had time to respond, or may not have heeded the warning.
Re: (Score:2)
It won't just dampen interest it will probably kill it since it is Sukhoi's first commercial aircraft venture.
I'll wait however for the report on what caused the crash, but leaving it to the probabilities it may have been pilot error.
That goes not without saying that the design of this new aircraft could have contributed to a lack of understanding of the
flight characteristics of the plane or it could have just been a piece of shit to begin with.
Re: (Score:3)
if the pilot is dead, then it is always pilot error. He cant defend himself, or point to any incorrect training or manuals or flight characteristics. PR will always point at the dead guy in these cases, until the same thing happens multiple times, or blame can be pinned on somebody outside of the company like in the valuejet crash.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't worry, they'll make up for it by selling more weapons to North Korea.
Re:Similar to this crash of an Airbus 320 (Score:5, Insightful)
Nope, sorry, your explanation is the standard one and it's wrong - the FBW system didn't prevent anything, the pilot had the engines at a far too low power setting and it takes time for any jet engine to spool up from that point. The pilot should have had the engines at a high power setting (TOGA) and he should have been using aerodynamic devices to keep the speed at the level he wanted it - he didn't, he just throttled back the engines, which you should never do in that situation.
The pilot was correctly blamed for that one.
Re: (Score:3)
That's rubbish. The fly by wire system didn't prevent anything. The engines actually spooled up quicker than the numbers in the book said they should. The problem is basically the crew didn't add power until the tail was already dragging through the tree tops (which added a tremendous amount of drag, as well as distorting and damaging the aerodynamic tail surfaces). Any airliner of that size, fly by wire or not, would have crashed doing what that crew did - unless it was fitted with JATO rockets.