Jakarta, Indonesia (CNN) -- Russia's newest civilian airliner disappeared Wednesday from radar screens during a half-hour demonstration flight in the Indonesian capital, Jakarta, state-run RIA Novosti news service reported.
There were 44 passengers on board.
The plane went missing at about 2 p.m. in the area of Bogor, West Java, Indonesian Transportation Ministry spokesman Bambang Ervan told Metro TV.
The pilots requested permission to descend from 10,000 feet to 6,000 feet, air traffic controllers said. After that, all radio contact was lost.
The plane began making its descent but vanished from radar screens at 6,200 feet in a mountainous area.
By the time the plane was due to return it should have burned up its fuel, RIA Novosti said.
The Sukhoi Superjet 100 airplane arrived in Jakarta as part of a demonstration tour of six Asian countries. It had been to Myanmar, Pakistan and Kazakhstan, and was due to visit Laos and Vietnam after Indonesia, RIA Novosti said.
Sukhoi manufactures military aircraft and is known especially for its fighter jets. Its civilian aircraft is narrow-bodied with a dual-class cabin that can transport 100 passengers over regional routes. It flew its maiden flight in 2008.
In March, a Superjet 100 operated by Russia's Aeroflot Airlines was forced to abandon its flight to Astrakhan, Russia, and return to Moscow because of problems with the undercarriage, according to RIA Novosti.
A similar defect in another Aeroflot-operated Superjet 100 plane had to be fixed in Minsk in December.
Russia's state-run United Aircraft Corp. said the defect did not affect passenger safety.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/09/world/asia/indonesia-plane/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
I was just about to post it.
Uh oh...
starting to sound like it hit a mountain
Yeah it sounds like CFIT
its been 6 hours... either they've found a crashed plane or aliens got to them.
Could this be a squawk 7500?
This is the end of the Super Jet unless they discover what's wrong with it.
Part of me hopes there is some mechanical failure involved and not just pilot error. It doesn't add up to that, given the conditions.
Either way, I guess this isn't helping their sales pitch :laugh:
Quote from: alexgv1 on May 09, 2012, 05:42:25 PM
Either way, I guess this isn't helping their sales pitch :laugh:
... especially when the sales and purchasing people were aboard...
Quote from: swiftus27 on May 09, 2012, 05:46:07 PM
... especially when the sales and purchasing people were aboard...
BOOM! He went there :laugh:
Too early?
Seriously... they can't find the plane? What happened to this a/c?
Heard something about bad weather over there, reminder the C130 that hit a mountain in Sweden some months ago took them a couple of days to find that one as well.
Lets hope it's a squawk 7500 situation and not CFIT. Better not be mechanical failure, nice to see something new over Europe.
I wouldnt fly below the highest peak in the area unless there was an ILS beam at the end of it.
Quote from: swiftus27 on May 09, 2012, 09:25:06 PM
I wouldnt fly below the highest peak in the area unless there was an ILS beam at the end of it.
It's Indonesia... most airports are non-precision approaches in mountainous regions with a monsoon climate, onto a runway in worse condition than our roads with farm animals on it (coming from a Lion Air F/O). I think CFIT would be more appropriate explanation in the regional airports but I find it hard to believe it would happen in the day time at the main airport, which has a CATI ILS on both runways (don't know if the pilots chose to use it) and MSA of 2000' coming over sea or 4500' over land (i.e. not that mountainous terrain). If this was a demonstration flight then these would have been some of the most capable pilots available to the company. Therefore I find it hard to believe CFIT in this case. Although I love the look of the SSJ and I hope to see and fly it some day, we will have to wait for the facts of the investigation, assuming the wreckage is found.
CFIT. Damn. And with that dies Russian aviation.
http://www.smh.com.au/world/indonesians-find-wreckage-of-missing-russian-plane-20120510-1ydw4.html
wreckage found..
Quote from: swiftus27 on May 10, 2012, 11:27:46 AM
CFIT. Damn. And with that dies Russian aviation.
Does it? Comet's literally fell apart in the sky, the British aviation industry kept going after that.
Quote from: DaveP1991 on May 10, 2012, 02:16:23 PM
Does it? Comet's literally fell apart in the sky, the British aviation industry kept going after that.
Yeah, but British aviation industry supplied other planes as well, and also they supply quality... for Russian industry you may have multiple companies, but none of them actually builds an aircraft of quality.
I am however sad for the loss of life, no matter what it was caused by.
Quote from: DaveP1991 on May 10, 2012, 02:16:23 PM
Does it? Comet's literally fell apart in the sky, the British aviation industry kept going after that.
Big difference 60 years ago when they were flying. And did they ever recover? Boeing captured the skies with a less efficient 707. BAC failed on the Trident (Boeing owned with the 727). The VC10 was largely unordered. Tell me which British a/c has really thrived since then? It took the merger with Airbus before british aviation moved forward again.
This plane is built for a smaller niche market. Its basically made to be a 'london city' type plane somewhere between a 737/320 and a crj/erj. They can't afford much bad press after the undercarriage issue and now this. A cockpit recorder will probably hear "terrain terrain" or "sink rate" hopefully as they slammed into a mountain 400 feet below their newly assigned altitude
Well, an A320 crashed during a show in front of thousands of people right at the beginning of its service life and a great majority where skeptical about it. I don't think the A320 crash put Airbus 6 feet under.
Quote from: ArcherII on May 11, 2012, 12:32:57 AM
Well, an A320 crashed during a show in front of thousands of people right at the beginning of its service life and a great majority where skeptical about it. I don't think the A320 crash put Airbus 6 feet under.
A square is a rectangle but a rectangle isn't necessarily a square.
You simply can not compare these scenarios. Airbus had a good track record, governments giving crazy loan terms/subsidies to prospective buyers.... Name the last truly successful Russian/Soviet aircraft??
Airbus didn't have a good track record back then (this was the 80s), it was their second plane after the A300... that's the plane that they then built their industry and reputation on.
My gut says this was most likely pilot error. Either way it is only speculation, it will be a year before we know what really happened. I highly doubt it was a technical problem but more likely Russian pilots being Russian pilots. Thought they were good enjoying the scenery aks for a lower level, they didn't declare a mayday, found themselves in some clouds and whamo! Complacency in a region they didn't know well.
Quote from: juanchopancho on May 11, 2012, 03:41:31 AM
My gut says this was most likely pilot error. Either way it is only speculation, it will be a year before we know what really happened. I highly doubt it was a technical problem but more likely Russian pilots being Russian pilots. Thought they were good enjoying the scenery aks for a lower level, they didn't declare a mayday, found themselves in some clouds and whamo! Complacency in a region they didn't know well.
I fear that might pretty wel sum it up :'(
I recall some pilots crashed and killed the president of Mozambique in the mid 80's. They were drunk.
Quote from: alexgv1 on May 11, 2012, 02:13:51 AM
Airbus didn't have a good track record back then (this was the 80s), it was their second plane after the A300... that's the plane that they then built their industry and reputation on.
But you also had the governments basically force the national airlines to buy them. I'm just saying that you can't compare the two situations. The Russian/soviet aviation industry has a negative image due to the polish presidents tu154, all the crashes in the middle east, and that there is still anti soviet sentiment.
Quote from: swiftus27 on May 11, 2012, 11:36:48 AM
But you also had the governments basically force the national airlines to buy them. I'm just saying that you can't compare the two situations. The Russian/soviet aviation industry has a negative image due to the polish presidents tu154, all the crashes in the middle east, and that there is still anti soviet sentiment.
Aeroflot, the national airline, was forced to buy the SSJ as well. I agree there is stigma against the Russian aviation industry, mainly thanks to the efforts of Jona ::) and Sukhoi is a new entrant to the civilian world of jet aircraft (although their fighters look mean ass).
Quote from: swiftus27 on May 11, 2012, 11:36:48 AM
But you also had the governments basically force the national airlines to buy them. I'm just saying that you can't compare the two situations. The Russian/soviet aviation industry has a negative image due to the polish presidents tu154, all the crashes in the middle east, and that there is still anti soviet sentiment.
I remember BA only began operating Airbuses when they took over BCal and inherited an order, previously they were one of Boeing's Loyalist customers. It did give them chance to compare the 737 Classic and the A320 and the A320 offered better performance... Boeing launched the 737NG to restore parity.
The A330 was also involved in a crash during testing and again proved itself.
I think the issue with the Russian Aircraft is that they don't offer a clear advantage over competing western types. Most airlines are forgiving of a crash in testing as long as steps are put in place to prevent a recurrence. How does the Sukhoi stack up against the E-Jets? Plus also Embraer are rumoured to be looking at a E19xNEO using the GTF engine which would leave the Sukhoi back at square one
I have, in my opinion, a good answer for this.
Early, computer models were not possible. No one knew Comets would burst in the sky because squared windows caused extra fatigue.
Fly by wire tech was young and untested in commercial a/c. Who knew autopilot would overrule the pilot? Since then the a/c has flown amazingly. That was a test flight of an early prototype (right?). The plane was sound. The plane crashed due to software.
This time, you have the first post soviet russian a/c hitting the market. It is going after a niche market. The plane has early issues with its landing gear... gets fixed. Now you have a supposedly working plane pick up prospective buyers and fly them into a mountainside. As of now, without the black boxes, we can only assume what happened. But, the limited market size now coupled with these incidents and from a nation with a less-than-adequate history of making commercial a/c will now put substantial on Sukhoi. As mentioned above, that engine may be offered on Western made a/c. That would kill Sukhoi.
Again, my opinion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonov_An-148
Could not this be considered a post soviet a/c too?
Also
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-334
total flop..2 built..
But I'm in general agreeing with your sentiments Swiftus.
Quote from: knutm1980 on May 11, 2012, 09:22:11 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonov_An-148
Could not this be considered a post soviet a/c too?
From the wiki page:
5 March 2011: An Antonov An-148 (assembled by Voronezh Aircraft Production Association, VASO, Russia) carrying test registration 61708 crashed during a test flight in Belgorod region, Russia, after an inflight break-up killing all 6 crew members onboard. An investigation commission found that the crew permitted the aircraft to accelerate more than 60 knots above its "Never Exceed" speed in an emergency descent, which led to the inflight break-up.[26] Witnesses on the ground reported a wing had separated from the aircraft in flight. The aircraft was due to be delivered to Myanmar; two of the dead were from that country.
BRILLIANT. Exceed Vne !!!
And between both models mentioned, 19 total planes built is bad news.
Could it be, much like the new chinese plane Comac ARJ21 that there is, as suspected back in the days of the concorde and TU 144, that perhaps its industrial espionage abound, and subsequently, the planes are poor copies? They just have a tendency to look a bit too much like things we already know..shouldn't need to re-invent the wheel to keep them up tin the air.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACAC_ARJ21
http://aeroblogger.com/home/blog/suhoi-superjet-crash-was-taws-turned-off/ (http://aeroblogger.com/home/blog/suhoi-superjet-crash-was-taws-turned-off/)
Sukhoi Superjet Crash: Was TAWS Turned Off?QuoteThis image has been making rounds of the internet over the last few days. It appears to show that TAWS was switched off before the Sukhoi Superjet flight which crashed in Indonesia on Wednesday. However, some explanation is required of this photo, to avoid misunderstandings.
Firstly, it is important to understand what TAWS is. TAWS stands for Terrain Awareness and Warning System. It is supposed to warn pilots if they are going to crash into the ground (terrain), with sufficient warning time that corrective action can be taken and the plane can be saved.
In the picture above, the TAWS is switched off. This is not normal. There are a couple reasons why TAWS could be disabled:
- Maintenance had been done on the aircraft shortly before it took off. TAWS could have been switched off by maintenance
- Pilots disabled TAWS for this flight. This is done sometimes when the pilots are going to be flying close to terrain (for a sightseeing flight or some such thing), and they expect to be able to see the ground and keep track of it at all times. Having TAWS turned on would just result in false alarms which would disturb the cockpit
- Pilots disabled TAWS for an earlier flight, and forgot to turn it back on
Unlike some other things which are turned off (like the batteries) in this picture, pilots tell AeroBlogger that enabling TAWS is not in a checklist. Pilots are expected to have the aircraft set up in proper configuration before the flight, but mistakes can happen and settings can be missed. If maintenance turned TAWS off or the pilots had done it earlier, it is plausible that they would have forgotten to turn TAWS back on.
...
Still new customers ordering after the crash...
http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-05-10/pakistan/31654666_1_ssj-100-superjets-planes
Quote from: ARASKA on May 12, 2012, 02:29:10 AM
Still new customers ordering after the crash...
http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-05-10/pakistan/31654666_1_ssj-100-superjets-planes
8 is more of a purchase than an order to me.
Okay, so there's news outlets in Russia which claim the US brought down the plane and have started a criminal investigation.
Their claims are that American interests were involved.
Sorry to have to ask this, but isn't the market that Sukhoi is breaking into dominated by Brazilian and Canadian firms? (Embraer and Bombardier)...
I don't think Boeing makes a plane that small.