| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 147834 | 2019-05-07 03:04:00 | Strange fire on Russian plane. | mzee (3324) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 1460526 | 2019-05-07 03:04:00 | It seems strange to me that the fire was in the rear part of the Russian plane which crash landed & burst in to flames. So far as I know, the fuel tanks, engines etc are in the wings, & front part of the plane. It wasn't just a fire, it was an explosive fireball. How did this happen? | mzee (3324) | ||
| 1460527 | 2019-05-07 03:20:00 | Its reported -- "probably caused by pilot error, a technical malfunction or “adverse weather conditions”, apparently referring to reports that lightning struck the plane after takeoff". They have the black Boxes so hopefully they will be of some use. Just found a video on the "landing" wasn't exactly graceful possibly due to lack of control or maybe panic. edition.cnn.com it wasn't till it "arrived HARD" that it appears to burst into flames, it had a most of its fuel according to reports, and after watching air crash investigation landing with a near full load is not such a good idea. |
wainuitech (129) | ||
| 1460528 | 2019-05-07 04:55:00 | I thought the body of the aircraft formed a Faraday Cage once in the air so a lightning strike shouldn't cause a fire once in the air. But then we are all just guessing I reckon? Ken |
kenj (9738) | ||
| 1460529 | 2019-05-07 05:39:00 | many things can cause fire, tyres, scraping the tail, materials inside the plane, cargo, all sorts. Not just fuel and engines. | piroska (17583) | ||
| 1460530 | 2019-05-07 09:36:00 | There is also a copper wire that goes across from one wing tip to the other to help guard the plane in the event on lightning strikes, so the fuel does not light up. | zqwerty (97) | ||
| 1460531 | 2019-05-07 09:55:00 | Yeah, there's a video from a different angle (might be the one Wainui linked above), which shows the attrocious job done of landing it. Here's my take on it... As shown in the 'extra' video, they bounced it, and they bounced it HARD. The initial 'touch' was savage. Bear in mind it was fully laden with fuel (so very heavy), debatedly coming in without instruments to guide them (an arguement for the pilots given they slammed it down). You can see from the originally published video that the plane is sliding down the runway in a nose-up posture. It's supported by it's landing gear in the nose, and not by the aft gear in either wing (ie the rear of the plane is on the ground and sliding). So basically, they slammed it into the ground, smashing the aft landing gear off, smashing the gear through the wings, and rupturing the petrol tanks in the process. From there the fate of the rest is largely written. It's just lucky the flames didn't rupture the escape chutes. I do wonder though, if they could have / should have opened the doors between the cockpit and the cabin, and directed the passengers to the cockpit chutes as well, further from the flames. The video shows only about 5 people using the cockpit escape, arguably the best, safest option available. It was claimed the pilot had 1000+ hours experience. I'd query how many hours he's had over a Vodka bottle, coz baring a major systems failure, he did a really #### job. |
Paul.Cov (425) | ||
| 1460532 | 2019-05-07 11:58:00 | Yeah, there's a video from a different angle (might be the one Wainui linked above), which shows the attrocious job done of landing it. Here's my take on it... As shown in the 'extra' video, they bounced it, and they bounced it HARD. The initial 'touch' was savage. Bear in mind it was fully laden with fuel (so very heavy), debatedly coming in without instruments to guide them (an arguement for the pilots given they slammed it down). You can see from the originally published video that the plane is sliding down the runway in a nose-up posture. It's supported by it's landing gear in the nose, and not by the aft gear in either wing (ie the rear of the plane is on the ground and sliding). So basically, they slammed it into the ground, smashing the aft landing gear off, smashing the gear through the wings, and rupturing the petrol tanks in the process. From there the fate of the rest is largely written. It's just lucky the flames didn't rupture the escape chutes. I do wonder though, if they could have / should have opened the doors between the cockpit and the cabin, and directed the passengers to the cockpit chutes as well, further from the flames. The video shows only about 5 people using the cockpit escape, arguably the best, safest option available. It was claimed the pilot had 1000+ hours experience. I'd query how many hours he's had over a Vodka bottle, coz baring a major systems failure, he did a really #### job. I agree that the fuel tanks must have been ruptured, and if the engines were still running it would have ignited. Lightening should not have disabled the plane, it is a common occurrence. Control could have been lost for some other reason. |
mzee (3324) | ||
| 1 | |||||