0 $
2,350 $
4,700 $
1,257 $
COLLECTED IN SEPTEMBER

Fatal Incompetence And Social Irresponsibility: Superjet-100 Tragedy In Moscow

Donate

Fatal Incompetence And Social Irresponsibility: Superjet-100 Tragedy In Moscow

Click to see the full-size image

On May 5, a Russian Superjet-100 plane with 73 passengers and 5 members of the crew onboard crash-landed in the Moscow Sheremetyevo Airport. 41 people died as a result of the firie, which was caused by the crash-landing.

Following the tragedy, SouthFront covered available details – LINK.

The May 5 incident differs from other such situation with that there are lots of video and photo evidence (including ones from inside the aircraft during the landing) showing the moment of the catastrophe. Accounts of eyewitness, passengers and even one pilot are available online. Details and visual evidence, which have appeared by now, lead to hard-hitting conclusions about the supposed reason of the tragedy.

Fatal Incompetence And Social Irresponsibility: Superjet-100 Tragedy In Moscow

Click to see the full-size image

The chain of events:

  • The Superjet-100 took-off from Moscow on 18:02 (local time). The SU1492 is the flight between Moscow and Murmansk. The aircraft [RA-89098] was delivered to Aeroflot in 2017 and made a first flight in June of the same year. It was fully operational when it left the Sheremetyevo Airport on May 6.
  • Shortly after the take-off, the captain decided to return to the departure airport. The supposed reason is failure in one of the power supply systems. This, according to the existing data, caused loss of communication with the ground flight service. The rest of on-board systems worked properly.
  • By some unclear reason [according to the existing data], the captain decided to land the aircraft with an overweight instead of spending fuel employing air corridors provided for this purpose around the landing zone. By that moment, the plane was in air less than a half hour and had over a half of the fuel in the tankers. This decision is strange. The Superjet-100 was not burning in the air. It can be supposed that the pilots started panicing because of the loss of communication with the control tower.
  • The aircraft came in for landing in a high speed. However, the first try appeared to be unsuccessful and the plane made a circle for another landing attempt. According to the existing data, there was no fire on the plane in the air. The plane was controlled properly at that monent.
  • During the second landing attempt on a high speed [significant overspeeding], the aircraft flew over a part of the strip and crash-landed. The Superjet-100 bounced serveral times (up to 3) after the initial touchdown. The gear in the tail end of the jet collapsed as a result of the hard touchdown [under pressure of dynamical force]. The integrity of the engines and fuel tankers were lost. The leaked fuel ignited because of friction between the plane and the strip. The fire engulfed the tail end of the jet. This was the moment when the fire started. It should be noted that previously Superjet-100 planes faced some issues with the gear. However, in such a situation [under heavy dynamical pressure], the gear of any aircraft would collapse.

  • The plane slowed down. The entire tail end of the jet was in fire. Escape windows were opened only after the full stop of the jet. An escape slide was set up in the fore part of the plane.

  • People fleeing the plane can be seen on the video. Some of them with large bags. Probably, these are passengers of the business class that had rescued their luggage.

Fatal Incompetence And Social Irresponsibility: Superjet-100 Tragedy In Moscow

Click to see the full-size image

Fatal Incompetence And Social Irresponsibility: Superjet-100 Tragedy In Moscow

Click to see the full-size image

  • According to reports by informed sources and eyewitnesses, the evacuation from the jet’s tail end was delayed because of people rescuing their luggage in the fore part of the plane.
  • Videos and reports appearing online allow to see that there were no fire apparatuses or other equipment of emergency services near the plane when it stopped. They arrived the scene only in several minutes (according to the existing data, up to 5 minutes). So far, this situation has been explained by remarks that the air control tower had no contact with the Superjet-100 crew and had no clear understanding of what was going on. This version doesn’t hold up against criticism. If some plane without communication conducts an emergency landing, it’s apparent that the situation requres the involvement of emergency services. The video from the air control tower confirms that the deployment of fire apparatuses were delayed.

  • According to reports in the Russian media, the pilots suffered from poisoning by products of combustion. One of the pilots did not make comments. Another one, Denis Evdokimov, stated that a lighting strike hit the jet. Same version is being supported by some passengers. Nonetheless, a separate lighting strike cannot cause a critical damage to the plane or konck it out of service. According to the existing data, the plane was operated properly after the supposed lighting strike.

Summing up the existing data, it appears that the tragedy was caused by a series of fatal incompetent decisions [and actions], largely made by the pilots.

Currently, the Russian media is actively speculating on the situation providing contradictory versions and reports. More official data should appear in the coming days.

We express our condolences to people who lost their relatives and loved ones in this tragedy and hope that Russia’s authorities will conduct an in-depth investigation of the tragedy.

MORE ON THE TOPIC:

Donate

SouthFront

Do you like this content? Consider helping us!

  • PZIVJ

    “Interfax said the pilots then landed with full fuel tanks because they could not coordinate with the tower to “maneuver to discard” the jet fuel. It was unclear whether the pilots would have dumped the fuel or circled to burn it off, had they been able to contact the tower.”
    Sounds like the crew panicked, causing loss of lives.

    • Brian Michael Bo Pedersen

      In no way did they land with full tanks, the plane wasn full laoded to begin with, and after 35 or so minutes of light even less fuel is left.

      Why should a crew panick because of comms problems?
      All the procedures are in place for such a thing and have been trained again and again.

      The reason for the jumping is because of a too steep approach/glidepath, and with a higher than normal landing speed.
      Even a plane flying on fumes can jump around when the approach angle/glidepath is to steep.

      • Promitheas Apollonious

        have it occurred to you that if indeed the plane been hit by lighting its electronics could have been fried? That type of plane uses a lot of Boeing components and we seen what happen lately to their new planes. Just thinking outside the box here but to me the plane did not seem to be full under the control of the pilots. It look like they was landing with out the aid of electronics to me.

  • James

    One thing that really stands out to me is why would you slam the plane down on the tarmac like that after what looks to be a decision to lift up and circle round again. I think there is a LOT more to it than what meets the eye. I really don’t see any reason for the pilots to panic. All the flight tower has to do is wave off other aircraft in the path while the place that’s lost communication tries again.

    As for the passengers blocking the exit by getting their luggage, that’s just plain manslaughter and hopefully they are brought to justice for what they did.

    • jm74

      It appears that the co-pilot was in training mode, captains sometimes allow the co-pilot to take off and land to gain experience.

      • Brian Michael Bo Pedersen

        Captain always takes control in an emergency.

        • jm74

          Not when the captain is occupied or there wasn’t time to take the controls. Plane rose and with full power the nose dived which means that the control was pushed down or that there was a malfunction with the flaps.

          • Brian Michael Bo Pedersen

            The only thing a captain is supposed to be busy with in a emergency, is controlling the plane, control of the plane is the most important task for a captain and the captains sole purpose in life in a emergency.

            Flaps dont push planes down, flaps are meant to keep planes in the air at low speeds and increase lift.
            I guess you are thinking of vertical stabilisers, the control surfaces that controls the pitch.

    • Harry Smith

      Well, those passengers, most likely, won’t suffer much because of how Russian juridical system works. In Anglo-Saxon system all the prison terms for each of the charges are summed, so for 41 death, those fagots who cared more for their luggage than other human lives, could face about 300 or 400 years of prison somewhere in USA or UK.

      While in Russia is Roman juridical system and the indicted gets only the maximal term for one of the all charges. So maxim what they can get is 7 years of prison in accordance with the article 263.3 of Penal Code of the Russian Federation. But actually, I do not think that anybody will face 7 years sentence, because the judges are obligated to take into account if the person has children under 18, never had previous convictions and etc. So in the reality they would get something like 2-3 years of suspended sentence.

      All this we have because of Soviet legacy. All Soviet juridical system was based on the main narrative given by Lenin: “thief is ideologically close to us element”.

      • vaderfater

        Nobody will be sentenced from passengers. Also in western countries are not guilty.

      • JPH

        Please use at least some of your supposedly available your common sense. Those passengers were dropped in a totally unfamiliar situation unexpectedly. One can’t expect them to have the oversight to display proper situational behavior.

      • dfcvda .

        WOW YOU ARE A HORRIBLE LITTLE MAN

    • vaderfater

      This is not luggage, only presonal bag. With money and ID cards. Automativally everybody catches and runs.

      • James

        When the plane is on fire and people are panicking to get off, NO THAT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE!!

        Some people are just so self-centered.

        • vaderfater

          All right. We both have another opinion. I would catch also my backpach. This is 1 second and will not stop anybody.

          Btw., not the passengers, but the pilots were the source of problems. ;)

  • Tudor Miron

    This report (in some parts of it) is grossly contradicting available data.

    • Toronto Tonto

      Are you talking about RT data .

  • Toronto Tonto

    Finally a fair statement of the video evidence to date.

  • chris chuba

    Can we rule out sabotage because Boeing didn’t want to lose market share? The plane most likely relies heavily on computerized electronics and there is not much I would put past the sob’s who are in charge of the U.S. now.

    The U.S. did blow up a pipeline in the 80’s but the claim is that it was a trojan horse (figuratively) from stolen U.S. SW but I wonder if there is more to that story than that but the end result was a massive destruction of civilian infrastructure.

    • Toronto Tonto

      Your a POS and your mommy should have eaten your sorry azz when your bones / nospine were soft , go away and find a high bridge . Its a Russian plane that Russians OKd to fly .

  • VeeNarian (Yerevan)

    “The aircraft came in for landing in a high speed.”
    WHY? This is the heart of the enquiry which has just begun. The rest are deadly consequences of this fact.
    “According to reports in the Russian media, the pilots suffered from poisoning by products of combustion.”
    Was this before or after the hard landing?
    Perhaps SF should try flying the plane in these conditions?
    Why couldn’t the pilots land the plane at the first attempt?
    Did the pilots try what the US calls a “slam dunk” landing (after the lightning strike) but were not skilled enough to carry it out? Why?

    • PZIVJ

      That’s a lot of questions.
      I assume that if the aircraft still had a heavy fuel load in tanks, it would be harder to slow down and may fall to the runway a lot faster. Some pilots are not well trained for an emergency landing.

      • Rhodium 10

        Pilot though that to expel fuel inside a storm with lights could be worse!

  • RichardD

    Losing radio communication shouldn’t cause the pilot to panic. At that elevation phones should have worked as an adequate alternative communication method. If it was a lightening or 911 style directed energy weapon strike. There may have been more than communication equipment problems.

    On a calm day in broad daylight. It’s unlikely that two commercial airline pilots would have been unable to make a proper manual landing. Unless there were other mechanical or electrical problems inhibiting proper control of the aircraft. And if there was a “lightening” strike sufficient to shut down the radios. It’s unlikely that that’s all that was damaged.

    Pilot error wouldn’t be at the top of the list of causes that I’d assign from the information in this article.

    • Gregory Casey

      I agree.

  • Carol Davidek-Waller

    This was pilot error in an irregular situation. Boeing marketing and selling an inherently unsafe aircraft with no pilot advisories was lethal incompetence and lack of social responsibility.

  • Tudor Miron

    Why don’t we see the name and origin of the author of this “analyses”?
    “Shortly after the take-off, the captain decided to return to the departure airport. The supposed reason is failure in one of the power supply systems. This, according to the existing data, caused loss of communication with the ground flight service. The rest of on-board systems worked properly”© It sounds like the author was inside the cockpit of the plane and knows it all before any investigation results (black boxes data, etc.) is available. Problem is that if we were to believe his report and the only problem was the loss of communication with flight control tower than it is hard to understand how this crew managed to land safely even once before this event. He wants us to believe that if planes onboard radio communication malfunctions and the rest of the systems work fine it caused such panic that pilots were unable to simply call via cell phone (emergency services would redirect him to relevant services in short time) but preferred to dive bomb on the runaway.
    Author mentions sever overspeeding while landing but fails to question the reasons of that other than wondering that fuel load was the reason. Does author feel like a smart a$$ crowded by a bunch of imbeciles? Simplest explanation will be that pilot had no data (course glide path system, plane velocity, altitude change speed etc.) and was landing using visual input only but that idea would have interfered with showing that Russia is incompetent and sociopathic, does it?
    Author climes that fire and rescue teams arrived only 5 minutes after the crash. There are loads of videos showing emergency services cars rushing to the sport while plane is still moving along the runaway. Does author hope that no one have seen it?
    There’s a lot more in this and previous “analyses” but I have not time to address it at this point. Maybe later tonight.
    Scavenger animals make their leaving out of deaths of another fauna.
    Jumping to negative conclusions in such situation shows that author doesn’t care about actual truth but cares to deliver certain narrative ”while water is still murky”

    What have you become SF? Trying hard to line up behind MSM? Who’s writing and who’s choosing such articles to post it here?

    • James

      I would like to think SF would distance itself from that sort of behaviour so I would say the article was much more of an emotional response to an incident that raises a lot of suspicions.

      You did raise a good point, cell phones would no doubt be carried by pilots so they could get in touch with flight control. To me, the plane looked well out of control.

    • Balázs Jávorszky

      I think it is obvious that the pilots were struggling to control the plane, and it is likely that the controls malfunctioned. The other point is that landing with full tanks is not recommended but it is by no means something outlandish.

      • Tudor Miron

        That is what I’m trying to point out. Pilots know that better than we do (even bad pilots). There should be some serious reason why they did what they did. I’m not ruling out a series of fatal mistakes but to me it doesn’t look very probable. Above article is painting a picture of a imbecile crew inside that plane and that is little bit hard to believe withour hard data proving the case. Regarding resque teams – as I said. There are lots of video’s showing fire teams rushing to the spot while plane is still moving on the landing strip.

    • 1691

      Most people know that we can get the truth after studying the black boxes. Everything else is pure speculation. The author is just another idiot writing for the masters out of fear, not dignity. As for SF, it has been quite awhile since they fell into the msm gang.

      • vaderfater

        Already there are some infos.

        For example: pthe pilots did ot keep the protocol, landed too early. they should burn kerosine by lomger flying over the city. Second, the pilot accelerated(!!!!) during landing, therefore the plane landed at high velocity and jumped. Third, After landing the pilots did not turn off the engines, this is the reason of flames. Moreover, the personal opened one window, therofe the flames widepreaded so fast. And so on, and so on …

        This article is very good, because does not try to cover the incompatibility of pilots.

        • Tudor Miron

          “Another expert”… c’mon guys. If you don’t know much about planes and how they operate – it’s OK. Not everyone knows about that specific subject, that’s to be expected. But if you don’t know sh$t about planes than it is better to keep quiet than display agressive ignorance. Or is it deliberate “ignorance”?

          • vaderfater

            I am not expert. But sou are liar. I repeated the sentencers of russian investigators.

          • Tudor Miron

            Little Zio calling me a liar :) Mind trying to prove your words”?

            ” I repeated the sentencers of russian investigators.”(c) – BS. You’re repeating fake news from the media . I saw that article with exact same ridiculous clames (not swtching engines off causing flames and opening side window causing fast spreading of fire.” It has nothing to do with official investigators position and even less so with common sense.

          • vaderfater

            Why am I zio? Beacuse i write about mistakes of russian pilots??

            I tell you, these pilots will go in prison. You will see. I will remember you, all right?

            Have a nice day, and enjoy the memory day of defeating of fascism.

          • Tudor Miron

            I called you zio because you were retranslating fake news. I admit that pilots may be found guilty and if they are (or who ever is) than should be punished according to law. But! At this point it is way too early to jump to conclusions.
            Thanks for kind words. I will enjoy our Victory Day and remember my grand father who was wounded defending our Motherland during Great Patriotic War.

          • 1691

            he, or should I say “it” cause it looks like a semi-human, relies on the ignorance of the audience.

        • 1691

          Thanks but I can add 2+2.

    • vaderfater

      According to fresh news. the pilots were piece of shit. Thaey made lot of mistakes. Read also the russian newspapers, liar!

      • Tudor Miron

        Calling me liar? Ruzionic media (newspapers and other) is your evidence? Is it they hwo told you that not switching the engines off was the “reason of flames”?
        For same readers: I’m not saying that pilots were competent or incompetent. It’s way too early to say without more factual data (not some “rumors). There’s no actual data on what was happening with the plane, what kind of mulfunctions (if any) and their cause. Too many strange and unusual things happened that leads to many questions that can only be answered when all the data/facts are known.
        I’m just trying to point out that many are jumping with conclusions based on nothing and it does look like dansing on the bones.

  • Promitheas Apollonious

    SF is good not to promote articles that brainless people write just to fill an empty space.

    • Brian Michael Bo Pedersen

      Yeah, SF standards have fallen dramatically the last year.
      They dont fact check, proofread or many times they dont even have a source or author of a article to show, like they are just throwing in articles to get more ad space…

      • Promitheas Apollonious

        I dont think they change just took advantage of the war in syria to present themselves as pro syrian pro russian site with aim to donations in short then was good business for them. Now they are trying to change that and it seems donations are not their first priority and keep the posters who come here supporting them with their donations. If they continue to this path they chosen eventually this site will become just the greek sites equivalent to this who all they have is couple of brainless moderators they ban any one oppose their notion of truth and trolls. Sad but true.

  • Nosferatu

    In first hours after the incident, Sputnik reported about possible lightning striking the aircraft in the air, but this report has been removed and it did not appear anywhere since then. Does anyone know something about this possibility?

    • Brian Michael Bo Pedersen

      If so, a lightning strike hitting a plane should not be able to bring it down or in any way damage flying instruments/controlsurfaces.

      • Promitheas Apollonious

        It can if the hit is while is close to the earth meaning in not high altitude wise. A friend whose retired now but was in the control center of athens airport told me the other day when we was discussing exactly this issue with me. I am not an expert but I trust what he says since he spend all his life directing airplanes.

        • Brian Michael Bo Pedersen

          Interesting, so the lightning/voltage could hit the plane, and if the plane is low enough, the lightning could go through the plane to the ground making the plane a kind of fusebox?

          • Promitheas Apollonious

            very much, this is what my friend told me. Sounds logical, but as I said, I am not an expert on this subject.

          • Brian Michael Bo Pedersen

            But it makes sense yeah, thanks for the info

          • Promitheas Apollonious

            you are welcome. Searching the subject now and waiting to see what the black boxes will say, if they release the info to us.

      • Tudor Miron

        How’s that exactly? Simply google amperage, volta and watt generated by usual lightining and you wouldn’t state such things.

        • Brian Michael Bo Pedersen

          Planes are meant to be flyable after a lightning strike, thats parts of aircraft certification.
          Apparently getting a lightning strike close to the ground aint good.

  • Rhodium 10

    I think Pilots thought in the 737 Max accidents..as the computers could be turn mad..thats why they landed without expel fuel..but I can see that plane in high speed to land and therefore the nose dive and pilot pull up and hit the tail into the flat of the runway…but its very strange that authorities haven´t banned flights in that Planes..so it means that they suspect of Pilot errors…

  • Lazy Gamer

    The passengers who had a bag should be charged

  • JPH

    Far too much speculation based on assumed ‘data’.

  • TS

    May have required a fuel dump.. ws to heavy on landing