Talk:S7 Airlines Flight 778

Untitled

Please move and properly rename this page when the flight number is known. Daniel Case 04:17, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Please move the article to S7 Airlines Flight 778

Death toll

As reports are sketchy and unverifiable as of yet, do not list any official death toll. as of 2:00 AM EDT, there are only two confirmed fatalities.--Brianjames 05:58, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Similarity to Air France Flight 358

Is it me, or is this crash very similar to the Air France Flight 358 incident in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Should we also add this resemblance to the article? -- cncxbox 13:03, July 9, 2006 (UTC -5; EST)

I understand why you say that, but in that flight, all 300+ passengers survived, and the cause of the accident was due to the plane hydroplaning off the runway due to extreme weather.--Brianjames 18:30, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

There are several similarites (wet runway, no apparent tehnical malfunction) between this accident and Air France Flight 358 (See also MD-11 Accidents). As to the Air France disaster, it seems like pure luck that no one died. (See also Etobicoke Creek.)

Accidents during landing, especially in inclement weather, are quite common. In many situations a contributing factor is pilot error (after all, the pilot makes the decision to land and performs or oversees the execution of that decision, compare with CFIT). However, it might be best to wait for a formal accident report before any conclusions are drawn. --Oden 00:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Capitalist profit ideas are (partly) responsible for this

The idea that an 50k+ hours airframe is flying should be crime against humanity. That is a piece of junk that should be melted. 50k+ hours in 20 years old airframe, made of aluminium, where even the smallest deformation causes faigue, unlike steel? The article should address that some airlines use flying junk, sacrificing passengers for profit. Certainly a new or few years old airframe would not shred that badly as that ex-PANAM plane and dozens more people would have surived!

Otherwise this accident could never happen with a soviet-made Tupolev Tu-134 or Tu-154 airliner, because those had drogue chute in the tail and a damn big one at that, like 8 meters across. If brakes are bad or thrust reverser fails, the chute stabilizes stops the rolling plane dead in its track. It was dropped from western jetliners because airlines complained how expensive is chute canister reload and how often nervous pilots fire the chute unnecessairly. I'd say fire the chute 10 times unneded rather than not have it the one time you truly need it. 195.70.32.136 18:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Shit happens, even with the best engineering. The fact that some aircraft NEED to be fitted with a chute speaks volumes about how confident the manufacturers are with their brakes/reverse thrust systems. It's a wonder they don't have anchors as well. ):- Moriori 22:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Touché Moriori. The recent sales figures of the Tupolev company also mean a lot. Mieciu K 17:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

You do realize that an all-steel aircraft would be far too heavy to fly safely, right? There are airliners still flying without incident today that are far older than 20 years; many Alaskan freight carriers are still using Douglas DC-3s in regular service. Additionally, drogue chutes were never equipped on western airliners, so they couldn't be 'dropped' as a feature. ericg ✈ 17:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The MiG-25 is an all-steel design, the weight of a battle tank. Otherwise a DC-3 is not a fully pressurized design like modern jetliners. The many depressurization cycles and 50k+ flight hours of a 20 years old jetliner badly weaken the aluminium structure. Planes older than 15 years or beyond 25k hours should be sent to the scrapyard. The cost of brand new planes is quickly returned in reduced maintenance costs and much lower fuel consumption. There is no justification today to fly ancient A-310, DC-9 and B-707 planes.

The chute is important because it always works, regardless of the runway conditions or an intact landing gear (disc brake) or jet engines running (thrust reverser). You could use naval aviation styled arrestor hook and steel catch ropes instead, but it won't help you if emergency landing off an airfield. The drogue chute is the best and very simple stopping technology. It should be mandatory. 195.70.32.136 08:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

And what if the drogue chute accidentaly goes off during take of or flight? The main reason of accidents is pilot error and not mechanical failure, and even many modern fighter planes do not use the drogue chute anymore. Mieciu K 12:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

If the chute deploys in flight nothing happens. The tether is sized to snap at speeds in excess of 300km/h. In fact soviet fighter pilots regularly deployed the braking chute of their MiG-23 in flight, at circa 250km/h speed, several seconds before touch-down. (The MiG-23 landing gear was complicated and prone to collapse on touch-down, so it was extra security to stop controlledly). Also, the braking chute can be fired in the air to remedy an emergency, for example to help exit a flat spin or other uncontrollable flight situation. It will stabilize the plane in a few seconds before snapping away due to high speed drag.

Interesting, perhaps you could use your knowledge to expand the Drogue parachute article? Mieciu K 20:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Two crashes in the same day?

Anyone else find that weird, can someone get exact times based on UTC and see how close they were? Zanduar 22:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I've noticed it tends to happen that way; for some reason, plane crashes seem clustered. It may be that hearing of the first one frazzles pilots for a few days, thus maybe they do things poorly. --Golbez 23:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

"Notable confirmed dead"

I rephrased "Among the notable confirmed dead were..." to "Among the confirmed dead were also...". The former implies that roughly 120 people were indeed not notable - while I am certain their families would disagree. In cases of events with deadly outcome, we should be careful with describing a select few victims as more notable (implying more valuable) than others. With regards to WP policy, there's always also been debate if not all primary schools in the world are notable enough for inclusion, with the debate always ending in a stalemate. --TVPR 08:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Images from the IAC

• http://www.mak.ru/russian/investigations/2006/F-OGYP/FADEC_left.jpg
  • http://www.webcitation.org/5zlWytiXf
• http://www.mak.ru/russian/investigations/2006/F-OGYP/FADEC_right.jpg
  • http://www.webcitation.org/5zlX0KV0V

The preview images were archived with the IAC Russian page WhisperToMe (talk) 23:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC)