Russian Plane Crashes Durning Demo Flight

I don't understand how with modern technology, terrain avoidance, etc they can fly into the side of a mountain. I believe it was VMC also, so the MK 1 eyeball should have also been terrain avoidance.
 
I remember the Airbus demo flight that crashed. Wasn't that blamed on pilot error?
Wizzbang tech only tends to make people more complacent. Look at the tech used in cars. People rely on that tech and when it completely fails, they are lost and unable to handle it.
I resisted cars with antilock brakes. The first one I drove made me convinced it wasn't a good thing. Several years later, and several cars with them, I find they really are good tech.... until they fail!
 
At first glance, this one reminds me of the Mt. Erebus crash, which was attributed to the "too many cooks" effect. Wonder if the Sukhoi had. CVR?
 
Russian jet crashes on demonstration. Sorry, you just can't make this stuff up.

RIP for the victims. Horrible way to go. I just hope it was quick.
 
You knew this was coming.....


I wonder if they filed a flight plan? :rofl:


Maybe a little too early for gallows humor. I'm sure a lot of good aviation people were lost. :(
 
steingar said:
Russian jet crashes on demonstration. Sorry, you just can't make this stuff up.

RIP for the victims. Horrible way to go. I just hope it was quick.
Click to expand...

Pretty quick I'd say.
 

Attachments

  • sukhoi_crash_site.jpg
    sukhoi_crash_site.jpg
    217.5 KB · Views: 93
Odd that there was no distress call. Equally odd that they requested an altitude lower than the highest terrain in the area. If they were at the reported 3000 (meters) then decompression wasn't an issue, (or shouldn't have been a need for descent anyway). I hope they weren't demonstrating the GPWS!!! This is a head scratcher. :dunno:

The "too many cooks" scenario offered above by rottydaddy might be right on the nose.
 
Last edited:
Anthony said:
I believe it was VMC also, so the MK 1 eyeball should have also been terrain avoidance.
Click to expand...
I heard it wasn't the case because "cap" clouds constantly hug the two peaks in the area. There's an airway mapped right on top of the mountain, but it's higher (minimum off-route altitude is 11.5 in the sector where the crash happened, 6.9 right next inside the airport area). A local pilot says that he usually bypasses the area to the west. Jepp approach suggests to deviate to the east.
 
Check out pictures:
http://sergeydolya.livejournal.com/465758.html

Most of these guys died in the crash. Ironically, the blogger-journalist who posted it was bumped off the demo flight to make room for VIPs and airline reps. In the pictures he's playing the role of Neptune. Picture #15 is the chief engineer of the SSJ project - surprisingly young-looking. I don't know yet if he was on the flight.
 
Yeah, that's a nasty looking crash site. The plane literally wiped part of the mountain clean and the surrounding trees are completely covered in dirt.
 
Note that the vertical is up in that photo. The smash spot is at 80 degree slope. I saw other pictures from approximately same position, but where surrounding mountains are visible. Looks like the airplane was climbing steeply at impact.
 
Yet another what appears to be a CFIT involving a highly experienced crew...RIP.
 
silver-eagle said:
I remember the Airbus demo flight that crashed. Wasn't that blamed on pilot error?
Wizzbang tech only tends to make people more complacent. Look at the tech used in cars. People rely on that tech and when it completely fails, they are lost and unable to handle it.
I resisted cars with antilock brakes. The first one I drove made me convinced it wasn't a good thing. Several years later, and several cars with them, I find they really are good tech.... until they fail!
Click to expand...

I'd have to see proof, that Wizzbang tech, such as synthetic vision, would only make it worse. Of course, the refined accuracy of WAAS wouldn't be present.

Since it's kind of a side line of mine, I have spend quite a few years flying over numerous CFIT accident sites thoughout the mountain west....and comparing my large color moving map terrain depictions (warnings) in comparison to what the departed pilots apparently "didn't" see. In every case, I would have had plenty of warning, for many miles in advance. Without doubt, terrain warning & SV wizzbang can only be a good thing.

L.Adamson
 
GCA319 said:
Yet another what appears to be a CFIT involving a highly experienced crew...RIP.
Click to expand...
Actually the captain was once training to be an astronaut.. he was supposed to be piloting Buran (Russian Space Shuttle) but ultimately he never went to space since his fortunes were tied to Buran.
 
Only matters w greenhorns right? A sailor who has not crossed before is subject to some creative hazing
 
Geico266 said:
Cross the equator as a polywog in the Navy and you'll never forget it. ;)
Click to expand...

Dad told 'em to stuff it. They could come drag him out of his bunk and put him in the brig, he wasn't playing. No one made him.

You'd kinda have to meet him. He's not much for BS. At least he's consistent. :)
 
Indonesia National Air Carrier Association (INACA) secretary general Tengku Burhanuddin said the crash of would not affect local demand for such aircraft.

“We need jets like that to connect one city to another to support economic growth,” he said.

He did not want to speculate on the cause of the crash, but said that the pilots pushed the plane to the limit in the first joy-flight, in which he participated in on the morning of the crash.
Click to expand...


What in world is a "joy-flight"? Someone is not a native speaker, evidently.
 
Geico266 said:
Cross the equator as a polywog in the Navy and you'll never forget it. ;)
Click to expand...

Not anymore. Nowadays you learn some knots and sing a song an poof, you're a shellback. It's VERY forgettable now. Heck it was like that in '96 when I got out.
 
Last edited:
'Let's just pop through that cloud there'

I know it's tasteless, but looking at that impact site, I can't get that FarSide comic out of my mind.

1zr25qt.jpg
 
L.Adamson said:
Since it's kind of a side line of mine, I have spend quite a few years flying over numerous CFIT accident sites thoughout the mountain west....and comparing my large color moving map terrain depictions (warnings) in comparison to what the departed pilots apparently "didn't" see. In every case, I would have had plenty of warning, for many miles in advance. Without doubt, terrain warning & SV wizzbang can only be a good thing.
Click to expand...

Tech is only a good thing when used properly. When I was flying out west a couple years ago, the 496's constant "Terrain! Terrain! Pull up! Pull up!" was such an annoyance that I turned it off. Of course, I was VFR for the vast majority of it - 63.9 hour trip, I think I was IFR for about .6 and IMC for about .3 on one leg (before bitchin' betty got turned off).

I can easily see someone ignoring warnings because they know they're operating outside the usual envelope ("joy ride" ya know) and having it come back to bite them.

For the tech to be good, you have to understand how it works, and pay attention to it when it counts. Another example of tech being bad would be someone with a traffic avoidance system flying into Oshkosh for the show - Even if they realize that a full-out TCAS system won't even work there, they've likely become more complacent about their traffic scan even without realizing it.

All that said - I'd prefer the tech to be there, myself.
 
silver-eagle said:
I remember the Airbus demo flight that crashed. Wasn't that blamed on pilot error?
Wizzbang tech only tends to make people more complacent. Look at the tech used in cars. People rely on that tech and when it completely fails, they are lost and unable to handle it.
I resisted cars with antilock brakes. The first one I drove made me convinced it wasn't a good thing. Several years later, and several cars with them, I find they really are good tech.... until they fail!
Click to expand...

It's almost ALWAYS pilot error. 99/100
 
Indonesians found the second black box today: the data recorder. CVR was found quickly after the crash.
 
Sukhoi Superjet SSJ100-95B, factory s/n 95022, assumed temp. reg. RU-97006 took the first flight in Khabarovsk today for shakedown before interior installation in Ulyanovsk and delivery to Sky Aviation of Indonesia. Apparently the joyride crash did little to damage the contract, although of course we won't know if it is going to be executed completely and if the experience in revenue use is going to be positive.
(http://bmpd.livejournal.com/363545.html - spotter photos)
 
GCA319 said:
Yet another what appears to be a CFIT involving a highly experienced crew...RIP.
Click to expand...

Which tells us what exactly? Is this a trend or something? What's causing it? (Sorry if I'm behind on the CFIT issue)
 
Irish_Armada said:
Is this a trend or something?
Click to expand...
I don't think so. CFITs in "big" aviation are on decline, at least in the western world. This was a Russian crew and they represent territory (former USSR) with the highest (after Africa) aviation accident rate in the world. So I don't think this particular accident in itself tells us something new, only reinforces what was known before.
 
Just to round out the thread, the leading agency of the investigation released the final report... which I cannot find. Media report:

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/12/18/uk-indonesia-sukhoi-idUKBRE8BH0H820121218
Thirty-eight seconds before the impact, the plane warned "terrain ahead, pull up", and then warned six times "avoid terrain". But the pilot inhibited the system, assuming there was a problem on the database, said Tatang Kurniadi, chairman of the National Transportation Safety Committee, in a statement.
...
The crew was not aware of the mountainous area and was distracted by "prolonged conversation not related to the progress of the flight", investigators found.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top