Five key questions about the tragedy of “Superjet»

The investigation announced the main version of the crash of the airliner “Sukhoi Superjet 100” in Sheremetyevo. Named and the cause of death in this plane crash, which has become one of the most deadly in recent years. However, around the tragedy are emerging disputes. Experts in the field of aviation identified the main questions that still need to be answered.

On Board the aircraft “Sukhoi Superjet 100”, crashed the day before at Sheremetyevo airport, there were 78 people, including the crew. 41 of them died. The Investigative Committee put forward three versions of the tragedy: the human factor (lack of qualification of pilots, dispatchers and inspection persons), the failure of the aircraft and adverse weather conditions. We will remind, it was reported that the plane was hit by lightning.

A case was initiated under the article “violation of the rules of traffic safety and operation of air transport, which resulted in the death of two or more persons by negligence”. “After the investigators completed their part of the activities on Board and all the events, now the interstate aviation Committee is working on the runway and the aircraft,” TASS quoted the Minister of transport Dietrich.

Experts urge not to rush to the final conclusions before decoding the “black boxes” (which have already been extracted from the wreckage). But the main questions about one of the most terrible plane crash in Russia in recent years can be listed now.

Why was the Superjet on fire?

As already noted by the newspaper VIEW, the accident in Sheremetyevo was already the twentieth incident in the history of operation of the SSJ 100. This story is relatively short – since 2012. And 11 of these incidents took place with the aircraft “Aeroflot”. The only until recently, the catastrophe of “Superjet” with a lethal outcome occurred in Indonesia in May 2012, when the plane, performing a demonstration flight, crashed into a mountain. The cause of this disaster, which claimed 45 lives, was called a pilot error.

About the erroneous actions of the crew say in the case of “fire landing” in Sheremetyevo. “Either the crew did not have the opportunity to go to the second round, or they wanted to land the plane at any cost. They have already crossed the point of tangency. They sat down as an aircraft carrier – without alignment, vertical impact,” – said the newspaper VIEW aviation expert Vadim Lukashevich. He said: “On the video plane, as the saying goes, , it’s a guaranteed rebound from bands that normally is a guaranteed go – around. Why the pilots did not do it, it is not clear.”
“Judging by the video, so far we can assume that the plane landed with exceeding the landing speed and, perhaps, with an excess of fuel. It was clear that the plane hit the runway hard. The design of the aircraft is not designed for such speeds and such modes,” the editor-in-chief of the portal explained to the newspaper VZGLYAD Roman Gusarov.

READ:  Not only the pilot's mistake: In the death of passengers in Sheremetyevo allowed "a set of factors"

But why the hard landing led to a terrible fire on Board? Lightning strike? “Lightning strikes planes very often and all over the world. The aircraft in the air is not grounded, the lightning passes through and this should not lead to casualties or equipment failures,” Gusarov said.

But, judging by what the pilot of SSJ 100 Valery Goryunov says, there was a failure of the equipment. And it was because of lightning, which disabled all avionics, the crew had to land the car blindly, determining the eye pitch, strength and direction of the wind. Therefore, the “Superjet” touched the strip with a greater vertical speed than provided by its design. This led to the dastardly landing gear: the plane “sat” on the engines. And here Goryunov points to the technical features of SSJ. The reason for the ignition of the engines was their location below the body of the airliner – when the liner “sat on its belly”, they blazed. Stand by a strong blow struck Kryliya caissons, and from them spilled fuel. The plane, as they say, lay down on the engines, there was a spark and instantly everything caught fire,” says Gusarov. I was lucky that the plane was deployed, which allowed us to get away from puddles of spilled kerosene, otherwise, it would have been much worse, said Lukashevich.
Experts agree – the crew when landing set the wrong speed, but he acted in extreme conditions, which are difficult to cope with and the pilot of the highest class. “The crew acted properly and adequately with the situation. However, probably the pilots simply could not cope with an avalanche of technical failures”, – says major General, honored military pilot of Russia Vladimir Popov.

READ:  Justin Timberlake fondled young beauty Elisha Wainwright in front of cafe visitors

“The fact that the pilots, in General, planted and saved at least some lives – it’s a miracle. If you are in the plane of the last generation starts crashing of the system management is in 90% of cases leads to a total loss of the aircraft,” – said the newspaper VIEW expert in the field of aviation Vladimir Karnozov. He explained:

“The machines of previous generations had mechanical wiring, if the electrician refused – the pilot could still control the aircraft, albeit not so accurately and well. And modern aircraft – that our that Western – they instead of the steering wheel is just a joystick.”

The trouble with modern aircraft is that if you do not have electronics – it is not able to fly, notes Karnozov. The question remains: why was lightning enough to “blind” a super-modern aircraft?

Why did the Superjet land with full tanks?

“The plane is heavy: full tanks, he just took off. Accordingly, his pilots were put with a large weight, with a large excess in speed both vertical and horizontal,” Vadim Lukashevich points out.

“In the event of an emergency, an emergency, the plane had to dump fuel. Why this was not done, it is not clear,” – said, in turn, Roman Gusarov.

Vladimir Karnozov suggested why this was not done. “Pilots according to the instructions had to drain the fuel. But as the situation developed abnormally, they reasonably made the decision not to merge and sit down with a full tank. When you have a chain of failures, and you do not know what you will refuse next – probably it was logical as soon as possible to land the car while it is still somehow managed,” he believes. However, from his point of view, we can not say that the tanks of the aircraft were filled to capacity.

“Five tons of fuel is enough for him to fly to Murmansk and a few more tons is an organizational reserve. That is, even at the very minimum – it was eight tons of fuel, although the tanks fit about 16 tons,” Karnozov said.