Slashdot Mirror
Russian Superjet 100 Crashes During Demo Flight, Killing All Aboard
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.'"
That can't be good for sales. If I was buying an airliner, I'd have to pass on this one.
I hope Sukhoi wasn't counting on repeat customers to make their sales figures this year...
"Murderer? Well, that's a harsh word. I prefer to think of myself as a Mortality Technician."
Looks like Airbus and Boeing will be getting some more customers.
If nothing else, it was a very thorough demonstration.
In Russia...plane crashes you
No, just wrong. They took care of that problem by making sure the potential customers were in the plane, as the summary says.
The AACS key is NOT 0xF606EEFD628B1CA427BEA93A9CA9773F
...Superjet demo's you.
Did the pilot at least get to main screen turn on first?
About the passengers and the crew
It was carrying Indonesians, including journalists and businessmen, eight Russians, including embassy officials, pilots and technicians, two Italians, one French citizen and one American, said Vladimir Prisyazhnyuk, the head of Sukhoi Civil Aircraft.
about the plane
The jet was developed with Western design advice and technology from companies including Italyâ(TM)s Finmeccanica , as well as avionics and engine equipment from French aerospace firms Thales and Safran.
Built in a converted corner of a Sukhoi fighter factory in Siberia, the Superjet was unveiled in 2007 as part of a drive to restore pride in Russiaâ(TM)s aviation industry, but it ran into a series of development delays.
The Superjet 100, with a capacity of 68-103 passengers, is already in service with Russiaâ(TM)s Aeroflot and Armenian carrier Armavia and was half way through a 15,500-kilometre, six-nation Asian tour to try to drum up more international customers.
This is not a good start, will dampen the interest in this plane at least for a while, too bad for Sukhoi, they lost face, the head of the Civil Aircraft division and a bunch of potential customers, never mind the jet.
It was apparently raining or overcast, seems likely that the pilots flew into the mountain while attempting a sightseeing flyby. That's a completely different story than if there was a mechanical malfunction. Of course, they'll lose sales either way.
No In Soviet Russia Mountain crashes into you!
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
"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."
The world is made by those who show up for the job.
on the other hand, if they were being forced to watch an in-flight Jennifer Aniston movie, then it's just merciful...
In the 90's they told us that if a customer has a good experience with your company he will generally not tell anyone, but if he has a bad experience with your company he'll tell at least 10 other people. They failed to cover the "Your product resulted in their death" case, though.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
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.
This REALLY freaking sucks. This is the first big passenger airline jet since the fall of the USSR. Symbolically, this is awful for Russia.
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.
Reminds me of this demo flight of an Airbus A320
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_296
Lots of fatalities there as well because pilots flew an extremely dangerous maneuver and was unable to regain sufficient thrust to safely climb out.
Even though Airbus tried their best to blame the pilots, modifications were made to the hardware as well.
Christian
This is one of the times you should really read the article, so you don't jump to conclusions.
It was a demostration flight, not a test flight. The plane had been thoroughly vetted. So let's hold off until the investigation finds if it's plane or human error. It had decended to 1800m near the 2200m Mount Salek. We don't know if sensors failed, we don't know if the pilot got disoriented, and we don't know if there was a mechanical failure. We just don't know yet. So don't jump and blame the engineering.
The captain had lot's of experience, and flew the Superjet on its maiden journey back in 2008.
Those onboard were: "journalists and businessmen, eight Russians, including embassy officials, pilots and technicians, two Italians, one French citizen and one American"
This is a very sad situation, and I can't imagine what's on the mind of everyone involved. 37 people died, and no jokes will be coming from me. RIP.
Then why is the West worried about every technological threat from Russia? That always cracks me up. "We must spend billions on the latest tech and jets to protect ourselves from the Russian threat! Russian technology is inferior! HAHA!"
This crash certainly could not be a subtle consequence of Russia's recent threat to use pre-emptive, destructive force on US missile defense...
http://news.slashdot.org/story/12/05/04/1230221/russia-threatens-pre-emptive-destructive-force-on-us-missile-defense
Maybe one of them did not get off? :)
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
I would assume dirt, rocks, sand, maybe some jet fuel, and a variety of 'trace minerals' mostly consisting of aluminum and possibly some carbon.
I'm not sure where you've been, but America has not been concerned about Russia for about 20 years.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
This crash has the hallmark of what is called "controlled flight into terrain", which means the plane may have been working fine, but the pilots did not know accurately enough where they were. The impact seems to have been near a mountain peak. It might have meant that they noticed this too late and were trying to climb. This is speculation, but these types of accidents have occurred before.
So why was he so low in the first place? I read somewhere else that the pilot had requested a lower altitude from air traffic control shortly before the crash (from 21,000 to 8,000). This might have indicated he was taking the plane down, into what he may have thought was better weather, possibly for some visual sight seeing to show off the plane. Some call this "sniffing for the ground" - not the best thing sometimes, especially with 50 potential customers abord and on a sales flight. Again I am speculating a bit here, but the investigation will be interesting. Rest in peace to all.
You're an idiot. 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 and the European Aviation Safety Agency; 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?
Are any of the Russians going to blame US radar for this one too?
Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
Call James Bond! This is a SPECTRE trap designed to throw Russian suspicion toward the Americans!
In Soviet Russia plan crashes YOU!
wait no, I think I got that mixed up, let me try again
In Soviet Russia you crash plane!
Hmmmmm...... I don't seem to have this down yet.
How many can I sign you up for?
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
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.
I'm not trying to be coy here, but I guess I don't really understand how an aircraft with sufficient safety mechanisms would allow you to execute a controlled flight into terrain.
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.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Boeing is doing the same thing with their 787 Dream Tour: They outfitted a test aircraft with a semi-realistic interior to fly around customers, suppliers and media. It is not a full production model...the plane still wears "Experimental" badges warning that it does not meet federal safety regulations and many of the seats are not usable as they are not certified for whatever reason. That said, when I flew it, I was completely confident that Boeing wouldn't do any hot dogging to impress us, and they didn't. It wasn't a sightseeing trip, they let the passengers concentrate on the plane.
Airplane Photos, Airline News, Planespotting Guides
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!
No planes that I'm aware of have safety mechanisms to prevent this. There's the problem where you can get into a situations like a valley where there's not enough room to maneuver or climb out. You can get into these situations long before you actually crash. Wikipedia puts the rate of flight into terrain at about 25%.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_flight_into_terrain
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 been a real zinger, if it was the case that this Sukhoi was flying without certification or inspection. But since it received the same certifications and inspections that any Boeing, Airbus, Embraer, etc. plane must pass, it sort of makes you look like an idiot. Because it did go under "anywhere near the scrutiny a Euro or American one does," because it went through *the exact same scrutiny.*
Safety systems don't trump physics and performance limitations, friend. Nor do they replace a pilot's experience and familiarity with the controls and operating characteristics of the aircraft. If your terrain warning goes off, it doesn't do much good if you don't have time or distance to correct your course. Given that they had descended to around 6000 feet, and the mountain is about 7000 feet, it's quite possible that they couldn't pull up in time. It's also possible that (like the recent cruise ship accident off the coast of Italy) the pilot was "showing off" and got a little too close to something he shouldn't have. It's also possible that the pilot responded improperly to the warnings he was given (i.e., Air France 447 which crashed into the Atlantic), or responded too slowly, or that he was given conflicting or bad warnings by a malfunctioning instrument.
There's dozens of possible explanations for how a plane can crash - assuming that it's "hurr durr no inspections" when all the evidence available suggests that the plane underwent the same exact safety and regulatory review (by the EASA) that any other aircraft in service did is simply obnoxious political posturing in a (vain) effort to make yourself look clever.
If you're at 1000 meters, traveling forward at a rate of 100 k/h, and you can rise 10 meters per second, how far away from the ridge (or, how many seconds before you'd reach the ridge) do you need to begin climbing to clear a ridge in your flight path that is 1500 meters tall? Substitute in whatever numbers you please to accurately reflect performance characteristics of the aircraft, flying conditions, altitudes, and actual speeds, and there's still a "right answer" to this question, and any answer that's *shorter* than the right answer will end in a sudden violent stop.
Safety mechanisms don't provide you with a magical "suspend physics" capability. They are designed to inform the pilot(s) of errors, risks, and potential hazards, but they do not obviate the need for the pilots to be capable, familiar with and aware of the warning systems of the aircraft, and respond to them in a timely fashion.
Safety mechanisms cannot magically impart energy into the craft. Nor should they take automatic corrective action, because what if the sensors are wrong?
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
The data recorders (black boxes) will tell the tale. Since the wreck has already been found, I imagine the recorders have already been recovered and have had their initial analysis. But it could have been easier than that. If the flight data were continuously sent to satellites, there would be no need to recover the boxes.
Where is the video link? :D
Study your history. No way Putin will be a 'Fuehrer', he will be 'Fearless leader'!
Also bushy 'stash, 'man of steal' style.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
If I got on one of those flights I would complain if they skipped the barrel roll.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
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.
http://www.thejakartaglobe.com/newsletter/superjet-disappears-south-of-jakarta-notes-from-an-aviation-consultant/517078
Notes from an aviation consultant on the area in question and why it seemed like poor planning on the Russian crew's part.
There is no sig...
Easily. As long as there are humans doing the flying and not a computer they can fly into the mountain just by pointing the plane there. Sure - if the safety features are working "terrain, terrain, pull up, pull up" will sound constantly in the cockpit but that will not *prevent* you from flying into terrain if you choose to ignore those warnings for some reason.
http://www.cracked.com/article_19142_5-soviet-space-programs-that-prove-russia-was-insane.html
That's because Americans don't value education and experience, and think they're worthless.
Never depend on the engines and never fly in such a way that you'll die if they fail. Always keep an emergency landing area in sight and in range. Engines can fail at anytime and you can be a involuntary glider.
They teach this stuff in the USA to private pilots, and it is common knowledge on the web.
They didn't even fail, it just took too long for the pilot to get the power he needed, and should never have needed in the first place
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
"Russia, a land free of job killing market strangling regulation"
You clearly have no clue about Russia.
Trolololol
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. 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.
While I agree with you, for all we know this guy and his wife are 60 and their daughters left the nest years ago.
We'll take the house. Honey, the chances of another plane hitting this house are astronomical. It's been pre-disastered. We're going to be safe here
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 amusing that all of the anti-Airbus stories citing the sidestick as a central issue in this point totally ignore the almost identical crashes that involved Boeing 727 and 767s (crews managed to fully stall the aircraft while completely overlooking the issue at hand), and those have standard central yokes as control.
Do you want me to cite a long list of Boeing design faults and issues? The 737 rudder hard over events that Boeing denied for a decade, before the NTSB eventually found a major issue with the tail hydraulics? The 747 cargo door designs which Boeing knew to be a design fault, but didn't do anything until people died? The 737s with corrosion issues?
If you are going to troll, do it with some actually decent facts.
Or they may have hit sink/rotor while flying too close to the mountainous terrain.
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.
Is it the same Indiana, where they have almost legislated that number Pi is 3.2? Or more recently where a Supreme Court Judge refused to recuse himself from making a judgement appealing his own decision as an appellate judge? Welcome to the monkey house. I happen to live here too.
Some nice information and pictures are available at avherald. It sound like rescue teams are being organized.
http://avherald.com/h?article=44f464f7&opt=0
Or you could send them with the supplies and equipment to create a beachhead "colony" to refuel the ship. It wouldn't take much as long as we made use of the local resources, which at a minimum include lots of sand for construction (just need a binder), all the 95% pure atmospheric CO2 you could want (with bonus 3% nitrogen!), and plenty of water ice at the poles.
So all you'd need is some binding agent that will work with the local sand, an inflatable mold or two that you can cover with "concrete" to create strong airtight structures (bury them in additional dirt to achieve your desired level of radiation shielding), a few inflatable greenhouses plus seeds for shade-loving crops, and a small nuclear reactor to power your water-cracking plant to create fuel for the return trip. It might take 5-10 years to refuel, but if you're looking at nearly a year in a tin can both ways that's not such a bad deal.
So for less than the cost of a straightforward there-and-back round trip you've got 5-10 years of on-site research, infrastructure for ongoing missions to Mars and beyond, experience creating a self-sufficient offworld colony in what is actually a pretty hospitable place, and your explorers still probably get to return home.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
This is the second time I have submitted an article for Slashdot that is rejected and later appears on the frontpage with lots of activity. Fully 12 hours previous to Prokur's post, I submitted my own. This is further proof that Slashdot is totally random with regard to timeliness. I'm tiring of the lack of respect...
Have you ever noticed that anybody driving slower than you is an idiot, and anyone going faster than you is a maniac?
That seems to be the message of every Tom Clancy novel :(
You would expect the guys flying pre-production prototypes, early denmonstrators and the keep ahead of the flight hours to be
especially careful not to bend the bird. I would expect a GSM FLIR to be yelling "TERRAIN, UP +++++" until the FLIR saw sky
and a ground ahead "valley picture showing the passes" and the pilopt to know what they were doing, works on Dessault Falcon and Gulf V.
MFG, omb
I fly out of BSL 2-3 times a week routing AMS, LCY ..., it is almost impossible to crash out of without complete engine failure, the field NS runway 12'000 long is longer than LHR or LAX, In a Falcon I can pick up at 4'300 ft, where I could pull 100 ft, and still land ahead. It is HUGE.
In trouble the land is flat, mostlt vinyards for 100km, and is emergency landable on both sides of the Reihn, unless you feel to do a Sonny, bless him,and use the river itself
It is easy to see that you have never flown a plane, except a paper one. Terrain avoidance is OK, if you know and understand where you are, MOUNTAINS are always dangerous even if you are well above the peaks and everything stays working. Aircraft gave GPS, RADIO ALTIMETER, F (IR) MMR sensors. Depending on integration these are supposed to prevernt you killing yourself after doing lots of stupid things and the autopilot attempts to stop you unflying the airoplane eg the 35'000 AF 447 stall.
None of these systems, though they are a huge pain-in-the-ass will save your ass if you are stupid enough!.
In my late 60's, often as sole PIC I find myself punching out 8-10 warnings at finals VFR on Spring days into Bir, as I drop gear and 10 d flap 2'000 from touchdown and don't permit a high alpha go round setup with 4'000m runway ahead, When the mains are landed and the nosewheel firmly on the ground it shouts at me for reverse-clamshells, and then thrust so I hit the first taxiway
These system encourage either accuracy or thought byt it is really just a hire car
"The 737 rudder hard over events that Boeing denied for a decade, before the NTSB eventually found a major issue with the tail hydraulics?"
Yeah, those ones were nasty. Unrecoverably, terminally nasty in most cases.
The Slashdot title says the jet crashed and killed all on board. The article says they haven't found the jet, and nobody heard an explosion near where it was last seen.
Am I the only person noticing how the crash / incident amounts for fly-by-wire aircraft seems to be gradually increasing over such a short timespan?
I wonder if it's smart enough to detect oncoming terrain and make necessary movements to avoid. Maybe the next aircraft will have automatic autopilot next time a pilot makes an error ( assuming that is what happened ).